Petitioners No, 1 to 8 (Assistant Librarians) and Petitioner No, 9 (Deputy Librarian) being regular employees in the Establishment of the Islamia University Bahawalpur (to be called hereinafter as University) through this constitutional petition under Article 199 have impugned the appointment of Tariq Mehmood Chohan (Respondent No, 5) as Assistant Librarian vide order dated 28.7.2006 on contract basis and his regularization in BS-19 vide minutes of meeting of Syndicate dated 07.3.2009, on the grounds that the same are illegal, void ab-initio, arbitrary, perverse, without jurisdiction and lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that they had lodged an application dated 06.3.2009 to the Vice-Chancellor/ Chairman Syndicate pointing out a number of disqualifications of Respondent No, 5 but the Syndicate in its meeting dated 07.3.2009 has approved the regularization in favour of Respondent No, 5 without taking into consideration the objections raised by the petitioners.
3. Respondents No, 1 to 4 in their parawise comments have pointed out that petitioners are neither holding Statutory. Posts nor their terms and conditions are governed by the Statutory Rules, therefore, they lack any legal character to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court; that appointment of Respondent No, 5 on contract basis made by the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of his powers under Section 15(3) of the Islamia University of Bahawalpur Act, 1975 (hereafter to be referred to as an 'Act') was duly approved by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 17.6.2006; that his regular appointment as Librarian in BS-19 was also duly approved by the Syndicate in its meeting dated 07.3.2009 after considering all the details; that any order passed by the Authority under the Act is susceptible to examination in revision under Section 11-A of the Act: that petitioners have failed to avail the efficacious remedy, therefore, this petition is not maintainable.
4. I have given patient hearing to learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. Syndicate is one of the Authorities of the University in terms of Section 21(ii) of the Act. Duties and powers of the Syndicate are enumerated in Section 25 of the Act, which includes to create, suspend or abolish the posts as may be necessary; to appoint University teachers and other officers of the University on the recommendations of the Selection Board for teaching and other posts; to regulate, determine and administer all other matters concerning the University and to this end exercise all other powers in this behalf not specifically mentioned in the Act or the Statutes and to perform such other functions as have been assigned to it by the other provisions of the Act or the Statutes.
6. Simultaneously, Section 15 of the Act envisages powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor. With reference to the instant case I would like to reproduce hereunder the relevant provision of Section 15(3) of the Act, which reads below:-- "The Vice-Chancellor may, in an emergency which in his opinion requires immediate action, take such action as he may consider necessary and shall as soon thereafter as possible, report his action for approval to the officer, Authority or other body which in the ordinary course would have dealt with the matter."
7. In the light of afore-quoted provisions of the Act perusal of record reveals that on the recommendations of Selection Board Respondent No, 5 was appointed as Assistant Librarian on contract basis vide order dated 28.7.2006 by the Vice-Chancellor which was approved by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 18.12.2007. Later on a permanent post of Librarian (BS-19) was advertised for appointment on regular basis. In response there to thirty-eight candidates applied for the post of Librarian. The Selection Board after interviewing the candidates recommended Respondent No, 5 for appointment as Librarian. The Syndicate in its meeting dated 07.3.2009 approved the appointment of Respondent No, 5 as Librarian in BS-19 on regular basis w,e,f, date of joining. Record further reveals that on the basis of approval of the Syndicate in its meeting dated 07.3.2009 a formal appointment letter as Librarian was issued in favour of Respondent No, 5 on 19.5.2009. Instant writ petition was lodged by the petitioners on 18.5.2009, however, no injunctive order was passed by this Court on the said date or any other date, therefore, order dated 19.5.2009 regarding appointment of Respondent No, 5 as Librarian on regular basis still holds the field, which is never called in question by the petitioners before any forum including this Court.
8. There is no cavil to the proposition that Vice-Chancellor in exercise of his powers in terms of Section 15(3) of the Act has an authority to take any action, therefore, initial appointment of Respondent No, 5 as Assistant Librarian on contract basis made by him cannot be termed as an order passed without any lawful Authority. Later on the same was duly approved by the Syndicate in its meeting dated 18.12.2007. Simultaneously, regular appointment of Respondent No, 5 as Librarian in BS-19 on the basis of recommendations of Selection Board were duly approved by the Syndicate in its meeting dated 07.3.2009 which has been given affect through formal order dated 19.5.2009. The above state of affairs, therefore, makes it crystal clear that petitioners if aggrieved of any such order of Authority could have B availed the efficacious remedy of revision before the Chancellor as contemplated by Section 11-A of the Act, which reads below:-- "The Chancellor may, of his own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the record of any proceedings in which an order has been passed by any Authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding or order and may pass such orders as he may deem fit."
Obviously, instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is not maintainable when the adequate remedy of revision under Section 11-A of the Act is available.
9. Besides it is also noteworthy that petitioners are neither holders of any Statutory Post nor their terms and conditions are governed by the Statutory Rules. Rather the terms and conditions of their service are governed under the Statutes, Regulations or Rules issued by the Senate of the University for its internal use, therefore, they lack any locus standi to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Reliance be made upon University of the Punjab Lahore and 2 others V. Ch. Sardar Ali (1992 SCM R 1093) & Ijaz Hussain Suleri V. The Registrar and another (1999 SCM R 2381).
9. For the above discussion and reasons, this petition being not maintainable as well as having no merit is dismissed.