By means of an advertisement dated 24.07.2008, the respondent Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University, Multan invited the applications from Pakistani Nationals for different jobs in .the University Including four vacancies of Lecturer in Computer Engineering with qualification of Master's Degree/B.SC.(Engineering) (First Class) in the relevant filed with no 3rd Division in the academic career, from .HEC. recognized University/Institution. No experience was required for the said job. The petitioner applied for the said job and by means of office Order No, PF/Cont.0 Engg/Admin-1824, dated 11.02.2010, the Vice-Chancellor on the recommendations of the Director Academcis approved the recommendations of Selection Board arrived at in its 01/2009 meeting held on 10-11 January, 2009 and appointment of the petitioner was ordered as Lecturer in Computer Engineering in University College of Engineering & Technology, on contract basis initially for a period of one year. A condition amongst others was imposed upon the petitioner in case of his acceptance of said job was to withdraw the earlier filed writ petition praying therein for the said job, which petition was withdrawn. The petitioner joined services of the University. By means of office Order No, PF/18/Cont. C. Engg./Admin-1250 dated 1.2.2011, the services of the petitioner were extended for a period of further one year from 11.02.2011 to 10.02.2012 in BPS-18. In similar manner, it was further extended vide office Order No, PF/18/Cont. C. Engg. /Admin-1469 dated 10.02.2012 till 10.08.2012 in the same scale.
2. The Registrar of the University, vide Notification No, Univ-597-Admin/8002, dated 12.08.2010 conveyed the decision of the Syndicate arrived at in its 5/2010 meeting held on 17.07.2010 for regularization of the services of contract faculty members who were appointed through Selection Board and completed two years services satisfactorily.
3. The petitioner having been appointed and joined the services in University on 11.02.2010 completed his two years service on 10.02.2012 and even before expiry of said period, he moved the concerned authorities in University for his regularization through application dated 15.11.2011 seeking his regularization w,e,f, 10.02.2012. The office Order No, Admin.UCE&T-22/11809 dated 03.12.2012 indicates that the petitioner even at that point of time was being treated as Lecturer in Computer Engineering in University and in his such capacity assigned the part time duties of Controller of Examination (Personal Computing Examination) for B.Sc. Computer Engineering Session 2011-2012 w,e,f, 01.12.2011 to 31.10.2012 with an additional remuneration for said additional work at the rate of Rs, 2000/- per month.
4. Having no response for his request to regularize him in the service, the petitioner again on 02.04.2013 sought the same relief which although has not been responded to but the petitioner was made to believe that he was not going to be regularized on the strength of a recommendation by Semester Implementation Committee arrived at in its meeting on 25.09.2012 which added some more qualifications for obtaining CGPA under Semester System and also a 1st Division under Annual System.
5. In such background, the petitioner prays for his regularization which prayer is seriously resisted by the University mainly on the plea that firstly the constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is not maintainable with regard to the affairs of the University and secondly that in view of the changed criteria as was recommended by the Semester. Implementation Committee the petitioner was not qualified to be considered for regularization.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I find that in whole scheme of law deal with the affairs of the University and relevant chapter in calendar of University providing a process of selection and allied matters in the University, "Semester Implementation Committee" figures nowhere. It is only Syndicate, Senate and in some emergent situation the Vice Chancellor which are competent to take necessary steps to run the administrative affairs of the University. The addition in eligibility criteria for appointment of Lecturer as was recommended by said Committee is thus, not sustainable, and refusal on the part of University by placing reliance on such recommendations stands nowhere.
7. A right was accrued in favour of the petitioner on 10.02.2012 to be regularized on the strength of eligibility criteria provided by the Syndicate on 17.07.2010 and conveyed on 12.08.2010 which was in existence and holding the field on the relevant date, therefore, eligibility of the petitioner was to be adjudged on the touchstone of the criteria prevailing on 10.02.2012, the relevant date in case of the petitioner when he completed two years service on contract, satisfactorily. The subsequent change in eligibility criteria and that too by completely irrelevant Committee which is alien to the scheme provided in the relevant rules cannot be relied upon, particularly, in order to defeat a right which has already been accrued in favour of the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as "Mian Tariq Javed versus Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Lahore and 2 others" (2008 SCM R 598) has authoritatively held that the principle of locus poenitentiae would not permit even the competent authority to undo any appointment even if found defective after a long time and the incumbent would not liable to be removed from service.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-University has vehemently stressed for dismissal of the petition having not maintainable within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported us "Rana Aamer Raza Ashfaq and another versus Dr, Minhaj Ahmad Khan and another" (2012 SCM R 6) while dealing with a case relatable to Bahaud-Din Zakariya University which incidentally is the respondent in the present petition also and on the question of maintainability of a constitutional petition with regard to affairs of University following was the dictum laid down: "Adverting to the validity of the judgment under challenge, the submissions of petitioner's learned counsel qua the maintainability of petition before the High Court have been considered by us.
However, we find that the impugned judgment even if having some element of jurisdictions' defect has been passed in aid of justice and any interference would not be in record with the canoes of equity".
10. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the respondent-University himself has placed reliance on the case reported as "University of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others versus Ch. Sardar Ali" (1992 SCM R 1093) to contend that "normally' a right against a University would not be enforced by maintaining a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The use of word "normally" in the said reported judgment do indicate the intention and command of the Apex Court that there is no complete bar in entertaining the constitutional petitions dealing with the affairs of a University which otherwise is creation of a statue. The respondent-University is creation of Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University Act (III) of 1975.
11. For what has been discussed above, I am of the view that the petitioner was eligible to be regularized in service of the University as Lecturer in Computer Engineering w,e,f, 10.02.2012 and the University Authorities have acted in illegality in not accepting his such status.
12. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as a Regularized Lecturer in Computer Engineering w,e,f, 10.02.2012 and issue appropriate orders with all consequential benefits within next fifteen days.
13. I have been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner is continuously performing his duties in the University, he is not being paid any salary/remuneration since August, 2012.
14. The University Authorities are also directed to immediately arrange the release of withheld remuneration of the petitioner again within a period of next fifteen days and to continue making payment in future without any break according to his entitlement.