' MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, J.--- Through this appeal the appellants have called into question the judgment dated 22-11-2010 passed by a learned Single Judge in Chambers in Writ Petition No,5355 of 2010/BWP.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the appeal are to the effect that the appellants along with others were appointed as Assistant Registrars on contract basis for a period of one year by the then Vice- Chancellor of the respondent University. The services of the appellants and others were, however, terminated on 21-10-2010 by the Syndicate of the respondent University. The appellants and seven other Assistant Registrars filed W.P. No,5355 of 2010/BWP challenging their termination. The said writ petition was, however, dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 22-11-2010.
3. At the outset the learned counsel for the respondent University has raised objections regarding the maintainability of the appeal. The first objection is to the effect that the appellants had a remedy against their termination by way of filing of a revision and/or an appeal before the Chancellor of the respondent University under sections 11-A and/or 42 of the Islamia University of Bahawalpur Act, 1975. The appeal is, therefore, barred under the provisions of the Proviso to subsection (2) of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The second objection is to the effect that the petition was filed by eleven petitioners, that is to say the present appellants and seven other Assistant Registrars whose services have been terminated. The instant appeal has, however, been filed by just the present appellants. The other seven petitioners in the writ petition have not been made parties to the appeal either as appellants or respondents. The appeals is, therefore, incompetent and, as such, merits summary dismissal.
4. Further contends that the writ petition of the appellants is also incompetent firstly for the reason that an adequate alternative remedy was available to the appellants by way of an appeal/revision but they did not exhaust that remedy. And secondly the appellants were contractual employees and the respondent University does not have any statutory rules of service. The rule of master and servant is attracted to the case. Relies on the judgment reported as Sh. Amjad Aziz v. Haroon Akhtar Khan and 10 others (2010 SCM R 1484).
' Reserves the right to address further arguments on merits in case the appeal is held to be maintainable.
5. In support of his first contention the learned counsel for the respondent University relies on an unreported judgment passed against the respondent University by a learned Division Bench of this Court in I.C.A. No,42 of 1997 on 28-10-2004. In the said judgment it has been, inter alia, held that:--- "... The Syndicate admittedly is an Authority, of the appellant University as stipulated in section 21 of the Islamia University of Bahawalpur Act, 1975. The said Act has conferred revisional powers on the Chancellor of the University in respect of any order passed by an Authority of the appellant University. In this view of the matter the present Intra-Court Appeal is not maintainable because a remedy by way of revision is provided in the aforesaid enactment."
' Further submits that the said decision of the learned Division Bench was challenged by the respondent University through CPLA No,3165-L of 2004. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in its judgment dated 22-9-2005 affirmed the above decision and held that an Intra-Court Appeal was not maintainable because of the remedy by way of a revision being available in the matter.
6. In support of the other question of maintainability the learned counsel for the appellants relies on the provisions of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently opposed the preliminary objections. The main thrust of his arguments is to the effect that the appellants were appointed under section 15(3) of the Act, ibid, and the matter of the appellants was to be placed before the Syndicate for approval whereas in the 52nd meeting of the Syndicate held on 11-10-2010 Agenda Item No,13 was put up whereby instead of recommending confirmation of the appointment of the appellants their termination was recommended which in itself was illegal and mala fide. The reason therefor is that under the Act, ibid, a recommendation for approval should have been made to the Syndicate but the manner and language in which Agenda Item No,13 was couched misled the Syndicate. There is no order, therefore, in the eye of the law passed by the Syndicate which would give rise to invoking of the revisional/ appellate powers of the Chancellor under section 11-A or 42 of the Act, ibid. The learned counsel for the appellants pressed this argument not only in reply to the preliminary objections but also on the merits of the case.
8. In reply to the second preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent University that the appeal is not competent in absence of the other petitioners in the writ petition the learned counsel for the appellants has only to submit that the appeal is competent as framed.
9. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and have also gone through the record.
10. The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants in support of the maintainability of the appeal do not appear to have force.
' The appellants in the writ petition did not raise the ground regarding the decision of the Syndicate taken in its 52 meeting to be illegal and mala fide on the basis of Agenda Item No,13 being not properly framed. Indeed, before the learned Single Judge in Chambers, the appellants along with their rejoinder to the parawise comments filed by the respondent University filed a copy of the minutes of the 52nd meeting of the Syndicate. The appellants were, therefore, aware of the language of Agenda Item No,13, however, this ground was not raised by them either through the writ petition or the rejoinder. When confronted with the fact that this ground was not raised before the learned Single Judge how can the matter be agitated for the first time in the appeal the learned counsel for the appellants does not have an answer.
' Be that as it may, we find that there is an order of the Syndicate of the respondent University passed in its 52nd meeting after due consideration of the appellants' case. The argument that the Syndicate could have only approved the appointment of the appellants and not considered their termination does not find favour with us nor has the appellants' counsel been able to show anything from the Act, ibid, or any other statute and/or rules that the Syndicate could only give a positive decision and could not decide anything in the negative. If this argument of the learned counsel is to be accepted then the Syndicate would not be able to either terminate the services of any employee of the University or take disciplinary action against such an employee or indeed take any disciplinary action against any delinquent student. The intent of the Act, ibid, or the rules cannot be interpreted to be so.
Section 21(ii) read with section 2 of the Act, ibid, defines the Syndicate to be an Authority of the University.
' The impugned decision of the Syndicate terminating the services of the appellants is, therefore, a decision of an Authority as defined under section 21 of the Act, ibid. A revision and/or appeal lies to the Chancellor of the respondent University against such a decision/order under section 11-A and/or 42 of the Act, ibid. ' Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 reads as under:--- "2. An appeal shall also lie to a Bench of two or more Judges of a High Court from an order made by a Single Judge of that Court under clause (1) of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan not being an order made under subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) of that clause: ' Provided that the appeal referred to in this subsection shall not be available or competent if the application brought before the High Court under Article 199 arises out of any proceedings in which the law applicable provided for at least one appeal or one revision or one review to any Court, Tribunal or Authority against the original order."
Being in respectful agreement with the reasoning of the judgments of a learned Division Bench of this Court in I.C.A. No,42 of 1997 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in CPLA No,3165-L of 2004 we hold that the Intra-Court Appeal is not maintainable being hit by the provisions of the Proviso to section 3(2) of the Ordinance, ibid.
11. In view of the above, we do not consider it necessary to give any finding on the other preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondent University.
12. Under the circumstances, this appeal is dismissed being not maintainable, with no order as to costs.