' JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, J.---Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Vice- Chancellor on 7th May, 2010, through a Notification No,SGB/1-2/2010/1115-22, subject to agreed terms and conditions, pursuant to which the tenure of the office was fixed for two years with effect from 7th May, 2010. On completion of two years prescribed tenure, a Search Committee was constituted, which invited application through the publication in different newspapers from the qualified persons for the appointment as Vice-Chancellor, University of Balochistan. The petitioner feeling aggrieved, preferred the instant petition.
' The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was appointed by the Chancellor by exercising power under section 12(1) of the University of Balochistan Act 1996, which prescribes the tenure of the Vice-Chancellor as four years, therefore, the period of two years mentioned in the notification, issued on May, 2010 is void and illegal. He further stated that the tenure is fixed by the Act, therefore, with consent of the parties, it cannot be curtailed, hence, the petitioner is, entitled to continue the office for the remaining, two years.
3. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General opposed the contention and stated that the petitioner is estopped under the law to challenge the notification, as he by his conduct accepted the terms and conditions including the tenure of the office, therefore, under the law, he is not entitled to file the petition. The learned A.G. Further stated that the post of the Vice-Chancellor has been re-advertised and the petitioner is also one of the candidate, therefore by his conduct as well, he is not entitled to file the instant petition.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is to be noted that pursuant to the referred notification, the Chancellor approved the terms and conditions of the post of Vice-Chancellor, for a period of two years from the date of appointment i.e, May, 7, 2010. The petitioner accepted the terms and conditions and started functioning as Vice-Chancellor, without any objection. He continued to hold his office for about two years, however, before the completion of his two years tenure he addressed a letter to the Chancellor which is as follow:-- ' "1 wish to inform you that the contract period of the undersigned as Vice-Chancellor, University of Balochistan and Dr. Mehrab Baloch, Pro-Vice Chancellor, University of Balochistan is going to be expired on 7th May, 2012. A necessary action in this regard is requested.
' Prof Dr. Abdul Nabi, Vice Chancellor"
' In response to the above letter, the Chancellor UoB issued a notification, which is as follows:-- "Dated Quetta the 7th May, 2012. Notification: ' No, SGB/1-2/2012/575-83, in exercise of powers conferred under section 12(2) of UoB Act 1996, the Hon'able Governor/Chancellor, University of Balochistan is pleased to direct Dr. Abdul Nabi, to continue to look after day to day affairs of the University as Acting Vice-Chancellor, University of Balochistan in stop gap arrangement, till the appointment of a regular Vice-Chancellor on the recommendation of the Search Committee (under process).
' By the Order of the Hon' able Governor/Chancellor UoB."
5. In view of the fact that the tenure of the petitioner had expired, the Chancellor constituted a Search Committee for the recommendation of three suitable candidates for the 'appointment of the Vice-Chancellor, Pro-Vice Chancellor, University of Balochistan, which invited the applications and the petitioner also applied afresh. No doubt as per section 12(1) of the University of Balochistan Act 1996, the Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed for a period of four years or more, but in the present case the petitioner himself agreed to do the job only for a period of two years and did not challenge the notification during his tenure. His tenure was to expire on 6th of May, 2012, therefore, at his request, the Chancellor asked the petitioner to act as an Acting Vice-Chancellor to look after the day' to day affairs, which assignment he accepted. It is proved that on completion of his two years period, he voluntarily relinquished the charge as permanent Vice-Chancellor, consequently, the earlier notification dated 7th May, 2010 and its terms and conditions ceased to exist, which amounts to waiver on his part. The word waiver has been defined in the Black Law Dictionary as under :-- "The voluntary relinquishment or abandonment---express or implied---of a legal right or advantage; FORFEITURE."
' Similarly it has been defined in a book titled "The Principle of Justice of Law of Evidence" by Late Mr. Justice Munir as under:-- "The waiver is the intentional relinquishment of the non-vested right, or such conduct as warrants an inference of the relinquishment of such right, it implies consent to dispense or forego something to which a person is entitled. It is contractual and may constitute a cause of action. It is an agreement to release or not to assert a right."
6. The waiver means when a person by a conduct, has the intention to waive a right. OR, when a person has a choice between the relinquishment and enforcement of a right, did not claim it and opt lapsing of a right, expressly by declaration or by a conduct, amounts to waiver. To established the waiver by conduct, it must be shown that a person entitled to a 'right had the knowledge of breach thereof and that he had acquiesced or failed to act accordingly. The conduct of the petitioner shows that despite having knowledge of the term of his tenure and being cognizant of the relevant rule, the petitioner did not raise any objection on the terms and conditions during his tenure, thus, it would safely be presumed that he waived his alleged right by his conduct. Moreover, the petitioner claims his four years tenure on the basis of the notification, in terms of referred law.
Admittedly, this petition has been filed after a lapse of the notification, therefore, it cannot be enforced further, as it is a past and closed transaction.
7. Without prejudice to above, even otherwise, the notification and the terms and conditions were issued by the Chancellor in the month of May, 2010, and the same have been questioned through the instant petition, after a lapse of about two years, which is hit by a principle of laches. The petitioner did not request for the condonation of the delay, therefore, the present petition is otherwise incompetent, being barred by the limitation.
' Thus, in view of what has been stated and discussed hereinabove, the petition is accordingly dismissed.