' CH. SHAHID SAEED, J.---This order will dispose of both the Writ Petitions Nos.4836 of 2009 and 4213 of 2009 as they arise out of the same impugned orders dated 31-7-2009 and 12-10-2009 passed by Vice Chairman Islamia University Bahawalpur.
2. Petitioner Muhammad Arshad Khahwani Advocate has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this court as pro bono bublico and challenged the order dated 31-9-2009 on the ground that the Vice Chancellor in violation of the codal formalities nominated Prof. Dr.Shamsul Basar as.
Chairman, Department of law, in place of Dr. Abdul Qadoos Sial, Dr.Shamsul Basar respondent No,4 has a degree of PHD in Islamic Studies. He further alleged that it is also clear from the record that he has PHD thesis in Islamic studies included Islamic Law. In his service career he has been only member of faculty of Islamic studies. He has never been remained as a member of department of law. He has no higher studies in the concerned department i.e, law. The order dated 31-7-2009 was further modified through letter No,652/Estt. Dated 12-10-2009 wherein a direction was made by the Vice Chancellor that "The order dated 31-7-2009 stands modified under with immediate effect. On Consideration of facts placed before him, the Vice Chancellor has been pleased to nominate and direct Dr. Shamsul Basar, Chairman Department of Islamic Studies to also look after the assignment of Chairman, Department of Law, already taken over by him, in addition to his own duties". Petitioner further alleged in the writ petition that the abovesaid order be declared illegal and without lawful authority. However in the connected Writ Petition No,4213 of 2009 petitioner Dr.Abdul Quddus Sial has also prayed for setting aside the impugned orders dated 31-7-2009 and 12-10-2009 being illegal and without lawful authority.
3. Petitioner Mr. Muhammad Arshad Khakwani who is an Advocate in Writ Petition No,4836 of 2009 argued that the order impugned is illegal and unlawful and the same is against the Islamia University Bahawalpur Act, 1975 as according to the statute of the 1st schedule appended with the Act has not been taken into consideration while passing the order impugned, thus the order impugned is violative to the statutes appended with the Act. Further contends that the Chairman of Department must be appointed by the Syndicate on the recommendation of the Vice Chancellor from amongst the three senior most Professors of the Department for a period of three years and shall be eligible for re-appointment. The proviso further provides that in the department where there are less than three Professors the appointment shall be made from amongst the three senior most Professors and Associate Professor of the Department. Petitioner further maintains that the respondent No,4 Dr.Shamsul Basar is not a Professor or Associate Professor even he was not the teacher of department of law at the time of his nomination and he was not liable to be appointed as Chairman of law department. Further contended that even Syndicate which is the appointing authority of Chairman of a teaching department on recommendation of Vice Chancellor cannot appoint any unqualified person for any post. Mr.Ijaz Ahmed Ansari Advocate appeared in the connected Writ Petition No,4213 of 2009 on behalf of petitioner. Dr. Abdul Quddus Sial also argued on the same lines and also adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the other connected writ petition.
4. On the other hand, learned Legal Advisor of Islamia University Bahawalpur argued that according to section 15 of the Act the powers, and duties of the Vice Chancellor have been given very elaborately. He referred Sub-clause (vi) of section 15(4) of the Act wherein it is mentioned that Vice-Chancellor has the power to give any assignment to the teachers, officers and other employees of the University regarding teaching, research, examination, administration and such other activities in the University as he may consider necessary for the purpose of the University and he has legally passed the impugned orders and no violation of any statute has occurred. Learned Legal Advisor also referred section 30 of the Act and stated that in fact the Vice Chancellor has to perform his duty under section 15 and under section 30 of the Act to regularize all the matters. He further added that the petitioner has no personal interest and the co-warranto writ petition is not maintainable.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The point in dispute that boils down for determination in this case is that whether the orders dated 31-7-2009 and 12-10-2009 passed by the Vice Chancellor are in consonance, with the statute appended with the Act. Undeniably section 15 of the Act is regarding the powers and duties of the Vice Chancellor where it has been mentioned categorically that:- "The Vice Chancellor shall be the Principal executive and academic Officer of the University and shall ensure that the provision of this Act, the Statutes, the Regulations, and the Rules are faithfully observed in order to promote teaching, research, publication, administration and the general efficiency and good order of the University. He shall have all powers necessary for this purpose including administrative control over all officers, teachers and other employees of the University."
' As per amended schedule 5 which is at page 323 of the calendar, it is clear that the Chairman of teaching Department of any institution shall be appointed by Syndicate on the recommendation of Vice Chancellor from amongst the three senior most Professors in the Faculty and according to the second proviso of the Statute it has been stated that where there is no Professor or Associate Professor, no such appointment shall be made and the Department shall be looked after by the Dean of the Faculty with the assistance of the senior most teacher of the Department. From the perusal of record it reveals that the Vice Chancellor did not pass the orders as per the Statute and he appointed Dr.Shamsul Bashar as Chairman of department of law without completing codal formalities who has no concern with the law department even he is not a member of the teaching staff who is a PHD in Islamic Studies and there is a clear violation of statutes which is reproduced as under:-- Amended Schedule 5 at page 323 of the calendar, (i) *(ii) In Paragraph 3, for sub-paragraph (2) the following shall be substituted: - "The Chairman of a Teaching Department and the Director of an Institute shall be appointed by the Syndicate on the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor from amongst the three senior most Professors of the Department for a period of three years and shall be eligible for reappointment: ' Provided that in a Department where there are less than three Professors the appointment shall be made from amongst the three senior most Professors and Associate Professors of the Department; ' Provided further that in a Department in which there is no Professor or Associate Professor, no such appointment shall be made and the Department shall be looked after by the Dean of the Faculty with the assistance of the senior most teacher of the Department."
' From the above said provisions of Islamia University Act it transpired that the Vice Chancellor was bound to appoint Chairman from amongst the three senior most Professors of the Department and if there was no Professor or Associate Professor then the appointment shall not be made and the Department have to be looked after by the Dean of the Faculty with the assistance of the senior most teacher of the Department.
7. The Vice Chancellor in both the impugned orders dated 31-7-2009 and 12-10-2009 has failed to take into consideration the Statute as it was obligatory for him to act in accordance with the Statues. The Vice Chancellor being the principal Executive and academic Officer of the University has to ensure that the provisions of the Act/statute are being fulfilled faithfully as the University is governed under the Act and statute appended with it. No one can deviate from the statutory provisions even the Vice Chancellor. There was no urgency to issue the letter impugned in a hasty manner. First of all the Principal Executive has to see whether each and every act is being made according to the statutes meant for that purpose. No doubt the Statutory bodies are governed under the Act, rules, regulations and statutes which are meant for the said purpose and no one is allowed to supersede the same. The University functionaries are presumed to act under the law and no one can exceed from its domain neither supersede nor deviate. If the provisions of the Act are not complied with then the Institutions cannot run smoothly as is required by the law and the guarantees provided by the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Moreover the contention of learned Legal Advisor that the co-warranto writ petition is not maintainable because petitioner has no personal interest is without any substance because according to my considered view that the Islamia University is a public Institution and any person can file the co-warranto writ petition if any act is being done by the authority against the public interest and in violation of the statutes. So the petitioner has rightly filed the same. I am of the considered view that the Vice Chancellor has failed to observe the relevant law and the statutes prior to the passing of orders, dated 31-7-2009 and 12-10-2009 which are declared illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect, hence are set aside. These writ petitions are accepted as discussed above.