UMAR ATA BANDIAL, C J.--This order shall dispose of Writ Petitions bearing No,29747- 2011, 4894 and 1943 of 2012 involving a common question of law.
2. This petition challenges the appointment of the respondent No,5, Vice Chancellor of the Punjab University ("VC") on the ground that under section 14(1) of the University of Punjab Act, 1973 ("Act") the respondent No,5 V.C. can be appointed for only one term not exceeding four years. Secondly, it is contended that the V.C. is an officer of the University under the provisions of section 10 of the Act.
Section 42(1) of the Act provides that the retirement age of an officer of the University is 60 years.
Since the V.C. attained the age of superannuation, namely, 60 years on 21-1-2011, his re- appointment as V.C. on 23-1-2012 is illegal. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the hon'ble Supreme Court given on 14-3-2012 in C.As. Nos.81-L to 89-L/2012 titled Malik Hussain Mubashar v.
Muhammad Sajjad Hussain and Suo Motu case No, 24-2010 (PLD 2011 SC 582).
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have taken various grounds to dispute the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Certain questions were framed by the Court on 22-11-2012 with regard to the present controversy which, learned counsel submits, concern the controversy on merits. These points are: "(i) Whether the terms and conditions of service of the V.C. of the University are regulated by any law or solely by his appointment letter?
(ii) What are the means of guidance for his conduct in office?
(iii)What are the functions that V. C. of the University performs and whether it is a post meant for academics or visionaries who inspire the Institution and all its members?
4. It is however contended by learned counsel for the respondent university that above noted issues have become redundant on account of recent legislative developments. That is the promulgation of the Public Sector Universities (Amendment) Act, 2012 ("Amendment Act") which received assent of the Governor of Punjab on 14-11-2012. The Amendment Act brings about changes in the University of Punjab Act. The substituted section 14 of the Act now reads as follows: '14. Vice Chancellor.--(1) A person who is eligible and Who is not more than sixty five years of age on the last date fixed for submission of applications for the post of the Vice Chancellor may apply for the post.
(2) The Government shall determine, by notification in the official Gazette, the qualifications, experience and other relevant requirements for the post of the Vice Chancellor.
(3) The Government shall constitute, for a term of two years, a Search Committee consisting of not less than three and not more than five members for making recommendations for appointment of the Vince Chancellor.
(4) The Search Committee shall follow such procedure and criteria for selection of the panel for the post of the Vice Chancellor, as the Government may by notification, determine.
(5) The Search Committee shall recommend to the Government, in alphabetical order without any preference, a panel of three persons who, in its opinion, are suitable for appointment as the Vice Chancellor.
(6) The Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor for each term of four years but he shall serve during the pleasure of the Chancellor.
(7) The government shall determine the terms and conditions of service of the Vice Chancellor.
(8) The incumbent Vice Chancellor shall not be allowed any extension in his tenure but subject to eligibility he may again compete for the post of the Vice Chancellor in accordance with the procedure prescribed by or under this section.
(9) If the office of the Vice Chancellor is vacant or the Vice Chancellor is absent or is unable to perform the functions of the Vice Chancellor owing to any cause, the Pro-Vice Chancellor shall perform the functions of the Vice Chancellor but, if at any time the office of the Pro-Vice Chancellor is also vacant or the Pro-Vice Chancellor is absent or is unable to perform the functions of the Vice Chancellor owing to any cause, the Chancellor shall make such temporary arrangements for the performance of the duties of the Vice Chancellor as he may deem fit."
5. Learned counsel for the respondents have also read from the substituted Section. 16 of the University of Punjab Act, 1973 that is incorporated by the Amendment Act. This provides as follows: "16. Pro-Vice Chancellor.--(1). The Chancellor shall nominate Pro-Vice Chancellor of the University, from amongst three senior most Professors of the University, for a term of three years.
(2) The Pro-Vice Chancellor shall perform such functions as may be assigned to him under this Act, statutes or regulations;
(3) The Syndicate or the Vice Chancellor may assign any other functions to the Pro-Vice Chancellor in addition to his duties as Professor; and
(4) In section 42, after the words "an officer", the words and comma "other than the Chancellor, Pro-Chancellor and Vice Chancellor" shall be inserted".
Based on the afore noted new provisions, it is contended that the petitioner's grounds of challenge to the incumbency of the respondent No,5 V.C. of Punjab University have been rendered futile.
Accordingly, rather than pressing their rebuttal to the petitioner's contentions, the respondents rely on the provisions of the Amendment Act.
6. It is noted that the amended provisions of the Act envisage that a person may be appointed as Vice Chancellor of a public sector university prior to attaining the age of 65 years. In the present case, respondent No,5 was re-appointed as V.C. at the age of. 61 years. Consequently, the first challenge to his appointment is resisted by the said amendment. Secondly, section 14(8) of the Amendment Act provides that an incumbent V.C. is not allowed extension in his tenure but he is eligible to compete for the post of V.C. after the expiry of his term. Consequently, an incumbent V.C. can be a candidate for re-appointment in a fresh selection process for the post. It is explained that in the present case respondent No,5 V.C. was re-appointed as a result of fresh selection process in which other candidates were also considered. Accordingly, the Amendment Act protects the reappointment of the V.C. The objection is that the Amendment Act cannot operate retrospectively to defeat the points of challenge raised by the petitioner.
7. That objection is claimed by the respondents to be addressed by S.16 of the Amendment Act which contains a validation clause that Provides as under: "16. Validation.--Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law, any appointment of the Vice-Chancellor made or purported to have been made under any law before the amendments under this Act shall be deemed to have been validly made."
To explain the legal effect of aforenoted S.16 that is described a validating legislation, learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Wajid Ali and 4 others v. Globe Automobiles Ltd. and another (1993 SCM R 819) which follows the rule laid down in Commissioner of Sales Tax (West), Karachi v. Messrs Kruddsons Ltd. (PLD 1974 SC 180).
In the case of Syed Wajid Ali (supra), Slzafiur-Rehman J. speaking for the Court has opined in paragraph 13 as follows: "On the legal plane the High Court has not at all taken into consideration the Validation Act i.e,, Ordinance No, XIII of 1964 (Displaced Persons Laws Amendment Ordinance, 1964). Such validation statutes are curative and remedial. They operate in retrospect. They correct omissions and mistakes. They have to be given effect to in pending proceedings. A decision cannot be rendered oblivious to them"
"Such laws have been interpreted in Commissioner of Sales Tax (West), Karachi v. Messrs Kruddsons Ltd. (PLD 1974 SC 180) that until the judgment is final it is subject to the power of the legislature to enact curative legislation which .have to be given effect to in pending proceedings."
On the strength of the foregoing observations, the Amendment Act is a curative and remedial law which operates retrospectively to correct C omissions and mistakes that are the subject matter of pending proceedings like the instant petition.
8. It also transpires that the Amendment Act was promulgated in compliance with an observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 14-3-2012 passed in Civil Appeals Nos.81-L to 89-L of 2012 titled Malik Hussain Mubashir v. Muhammad Sajjad Hussain. In that judgment, the appointment of the Vice Chancellor of the University of Health Sciences was in issue. After some hearing in the matter, a statement was made on behalf of the Provincial Government that the appointment order of the incumbent V.C. of the said University shall be withdrawn and the University of Health Sciences Ordinance shall be amended appropriately. Based on that statement, a direction was issued in the following terms: "Needless to observe, the entire exercise i.e, amendment in law and appointment of new Vice Chancellor shall be concluded within a period of 3 months failing which the matter shall be decided strictly in terms of the existing law."
9. The present petition is in nature of a petition for writ of quo-warranto. Under the rule laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Kamal Hussain and 7 others v. Muhammad Sirajul Islam and others (PLD 1969 SC 42), it is held that a petition for relief of writ of quo-warranto is available when the claimed disqualification of a respondent D to hold public office is not temporary but remains in existence at the date of decision of the writ petition. In the present case, even if the defects pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner are presumed to exist, the same stand cured and remedied by the Amendment Act with retrospective effect. Consequently, during the pendency of these proceedings validating law, namely, the Amendment Act enacted by the competent legislature, has operated to cure any defect in the appointment of the V.C. respondent No,5