' RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.---The appellants have assailed the vires of judgment dated 23-5-2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber whereby Writ Petition No,4526 of 2010 filed by respondent No,1 was accepted and consequently their appointments as Lecturers in Department of Islamic Studies in the Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University, Multan, were set aside by holding that the same were illegal and void. It was also declared that the criterion for short listing the candidates for the above mentioned posts was illegal, without lawful authority and contrary to the terms and conditions as set-forth in the advertisement. The University was directed to prepare the fresh list of eligible candidates after excluding the marks of experience and after giving 30% weightage marks to respondent No,1 and other candidates possessing M. Phil. Degree, of which they were deprived on the false pretext that they had not passed the comprehensive examination and then to make appointments for the said posts strictly on merits.
2. Respondent No,1 and others submitted applications for appointment as Lecturers against two permanent posts in the Department of Islamic Studies, Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University, Multan, in pursuance of the advertisement dated 7-8-2009 published in the daily Khabrain. The required qualifications for the job were explicitly mentioned in the advertisement, which did not include requirement of experience rather it was specifically mentioned that no experience was required. No condition regarding passing of comprehensive examination was imposed on the candidates holding M.Phil. Degree. However, while making criterion for short listing the candidates, 20% weightage was given to the experience in the relevant field and a condition was also laid that those candidates, who hold the M. Phil degree but had not passed the comprehensive examination for the said degree were not entitled to 30 % weightage marks. The appellants were amongst the 20 short listed candidates, whereas respondent No,1 could not find place in the list of first 20 candidates. She challenged the criterion adopted by the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 with the contention that no condition could have been imposed against the qualification/terms mentioned in the advertisement and that extra, marks could not be given for experience against the clear pronouncement and that no experience was required for the job. She further contended that she is gold medalist and her academic career is exceptionally bright but she has been deprived of her right to appear in the interview and compete for the post by changing the conditions with malice as her brother had filed a writ petition against the Vice Chancellor of the University (respondent No,3).
3. The appellants and other respondents contested the petition. It was contended that the criterion for short listing was approved by the competent authority i,e, Vice Chancellor of the University so could not have been called in question. It was further contended that respondent No,1 had efficacious remedy in form of a revision before the Chancellor under section 11-A of the Baha-ud- Din Zakariya University Act, 1975 (Punjab Act No,III of 1975) and as such the writ petition was not maintainable. The appellants contended that they had joined the service and assumed the charge in pursuance of the orders of appointment and as such the same could have not been recalled at any subsequent stage.
4. The submissions made by respondent No,1 found favour with learned Single Judge in Chamber, who proceeded on to accept the writ petition with special costs of Rs,50,000 to be paid by respondent No,3 from his own pocket.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned Single Judge in Chamber has failed to appreciate that the two young persons, who were selected on merits would be rendered jobless as they have become over age and their future would be ruined; that their learned counsel was not afforded an opportunity to address arguments as the learned Single Judge in Chamber had verbally announced that their appointments/service will not be adversely affected and that in all other Departments, the same criterion for short listing was adopted by the University authorities and as such the appellants could have not been deprived of the employment on the basis of so called change in terms and conditions for selection.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 to 5 has contended that the instant ICA in hand is not maintainable in view of the Proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 as section 11(2) of Act No,III of 1975 provides the right to file revision before the Chancellor. It is also urged that services of both the appellants were terminated in pursuance of the impugned judgment before issuance of the ad-interim injunction in the ICA; that new list under the new criterion prescribed in the light of the judgment by the learned. Single Judge in Chamber would be prepared and that relaxation in the upper age limit would be given to the appellants. In support of the contentions raised, reliance is placed on Muhammad Ameer Azam and 3 others v. Islamia University, Bahawalpur and 5 others (2011 PLC (C.S.) 1227), Islamia University of Bahawalpur v. Dr. Abdul Qadus Sial and others (2011 PLC (C.S.) 1323) and Vice-Chancellor, University of Health Sciences v. Breeha Zainab and others (2011 MLD 1962) (Lahore).
7. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 has contended that the appointments made by respondents Nos.2 to 5 were totally illegal and based on malice. It is urged that the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Chamber is strictly in accordance with law and as such does not call for any interference.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants by exercising his right of rebuttal has urged that the Proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, may not be followed strictly as ultimate aim of the Court should be administration of substantive justice. It is urged that the statement of learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 to 5 will not remove the difficulties and agonies of the appellants, who would be confronted with the same difficulties in other Institutions, if they are not selected during fresh recruitment. In support of these contention, reliance is placed on Basai v. Qaim All and 8 others (PLD 2003 SC 325) and Dr. Amjid Mustafa and another v. Muhammad Faiz and 9 others (2005 YLR 419).
9. Section 11-A of the Baha-ud-Dun Zakriya University Act, 1975, as added through Punjab Ordinance No,IX of 1983 provides that a revision is competent against the orders of the authorities given in section 22 of the Act bid. It is, thus, obvious that the original law gives the right of revision. In view of the Proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 no ICA is maintainable when the right of appeal, revision or review is given in the Act from which the writ petition emanates. The contention that the provisions of section 3(2) .Of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, should not be strictly followed and should be waived off cannot be accepted in this case in view of the explicit provisions in both the Statutes. The instant ICA, therefore, is not competent.
10. It is an admitted fact that the advertisement got published by respondents Nos.2 to 5 manifestly reflects that no experience was required for the job. And that the passing of comprehensive examination on basis of which no marks are added to the final result, was not a condition precedent for award of 30% weightage marks to the M. Phil degree holders. The learned Single Judge in Chamber rightly held that no change could have been brought in the terms and conditions as were clearly set-forth in the advertisement inviting applications for the post without duly notifying it to the willing/desirous candidates. In this respect the reliance was rightly placed on Muhammad Intizar-ulHassan v. University of Agriculture, Faisalabad and 2 others (1997 PLC (C.S.)
835). The contention that the order of appointment could have not been withdrawn is also without force because apparently the whole process was tainted with malice and was resorted to, give benefit to some candidates and deprive others of their lawful rights. Any illegal order cannot create any substantive right and can be recalled and the principle of locus penitential would not be attracted in that eventuality. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that they were condemned unheard is against the record. Every contention raised before the learned Single judge in Chamber was given due consideration and thereafter the findings were recorded, which are supported through solid reasons and judgments pronounced by the apex Court. The contention that the future of the appellants would be ruined or is at stake so the impugned judgment to their extent should be modified is also without force because learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 to 5 has categorically stated that if they otherwise find place on merits in the short list, the age will not become a hurdle in their way as the requisite relaxation in upper age limit would be granted by the competent authority.
11. For the reasons supra, the ICA is without merits and the same is hereby dismissed.