1. ORDER MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.---Through this petition, petitioners have challenged letter, dated 10- 8-2010, annexure-J to the petition, whereby offer letter regarding award of scholarship and A office order for appointment as Lecturer in BPS-18 has been kept in abeyance until further orders by the respondents University.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that respondents University introduced a project titled as 'Strengthening of Infrastructure of Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur' for the year, 2008 (hereinafter called the project) for sending petitioners aboard on scholarship for obtaining Ph. D degree in different disciplines. It is further case of the petitioners that after going through the selection process and interview, petitioners were finally selected as scholars on the above Project.
3. Since there was requirement of the Project that selected candidates shall be appointed as Lecturers in BPS-18 in the different departments of the University and further award scholarship for doing Masters leading to Ph.D, it was one of the conditions for the project that if the candidate fails to proceed aboard for Ph. D degree, his/her services shall be liable to be terminated. It was one of the conditions that the candidate shall be paid monthly salary after such candidates returns and joins the University upon successful completion of Ph. D degree. It is further case of the petitioners that everything was going smooth but all of a sudden vide letter, dated 10-8-2010 petitioners were informed that Govt. Of Pakistan. Planning Commission has not allocated funds for the project for the year, 2010-11. In the circumstances, offer letter regarding award of scholarships and office orders for appointment as Lacquerers in BPS-18 were kept in abeyance. In this background, present petition was filed.
4. Upon service of notice, respondents filed their comments admitting the assertion made by the petitioners in their petition and submitted further, that in view of decision of the Federal Government for want of funds, petitioners cannot be sent for scholarship. The University further submitted that the petitioners case has been kept in abeyance and the moment adequate funds are released by the Government of Pakistan via HEC, case of the petitioners shall be processed by the University.
5. In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioners . Has submitted that petitioners' case was processed strictly in accordance with law and they have been selected on merits, but the University for the reasons, mentioned in the impugned letter, is not allowing the petitioners to travel aboard for obtaining Ph. D degrees. He further argued that the salary of the petitioners has been withheld illegally. He further submitted that neither petitioners have been sent abroad nor salary has been paid to them.
6. Controverting the above submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the University has submitted that the University is sincere in processing the case of the petitioners, but the same has been kept in abeyance only for want of funds. He further submitted that the moment the funds are released by the Federal Government through HEC and the same are received by the University, petitioners' case shall be processed strictly in accordance with law.
7. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents University, petitioners counsel submitted that he will be satisfied if this petition is disposed of by directing the University that as and when adequate funds are received by the University for the Project, petitioners' case by processed in accordance with law. We directed the University accordingly.
8. With regard to payment of salary, it will be seen from the record that appointment of the petitioners was made just to make petitioners a part of faculty members so that they may come within the ambit of scholars of the project. Without being appointed as faculty members, petitioners were not entitled to avail facility of Project. The appointment of the petitioners was notional and they were entitled to salary only after completion of Ph.D course and after rejoining of University. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to order for payment of salary to the petitioners for their appointment in grade-18.
9. In the end we may clarify that as and when adequate funds are received for the above Project by the University, case of the petitioners be processed in accordance with law.
10. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.