' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The petitioner in these two petitions, namely Professor Dr. Shamim Hassan and the University of Health Sciences, impugn the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 13-5-2010, whereby an appeal preferred by the private respondents (other than Professor Dr. Shamim Hassan) was allowed and as a consequence the matter was sent to the Chief Minister.
2. The question before us is as to whether the private respondents had locus standi to file an appeal before the Service Tribunal against a departmental order from which they are neither aggrieved nor did they have grounds to challenge the said order passed under section 9(1) of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The relevant provisions of the said Ordinance are reproduced as under:- "9(1) The person who has been awarded any penalty under this Ordinance may within fifteen days from the date of the communication of the order, prefer a representation to such officer or authority as the Chief Minister may designate: ' Provided that where the order has been made by the Governor or the Chief Minister, such person may, within the aforesaid period, submit a review petition to the same authority which had passed the original order."
"10. Appeal---Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any person aggrieved by any final order under. Section 9 may within thirty days from the date of communication of the order, prefer an appeal to the Punjab Service Tribunal established under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974 (IX of 1974).---Provided that if a decision on a representation or review petition under section 9 is not received within a period of sixty days, the affected person may file an appeal under this section within a period of thirty days of the expiry of the aforesaid period."
From a plain reading of the above legal provisions, it is clear that the private respondents could not claim to be aggrieved by any final order under section 9(1) ibid. Therefore, their appeal before the Service Tribunal was clearly not maintainable. In this view of the matter, these two petitions are converted into appeals and're allowed. Consequently, the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 13-5-2010 is set aside.