' The petitioner, who claims to be the senior-most and confirmed Deputy Registrar of the respondent-University since 1967, has prayed through this petition that the Vice-Chancellor of the Panjab University be directed to refrain from withholding his posting and salary.
2. By idly, the facts as given by the petitioner are that he was relieved of his duty in the year i975, and his services were placed at the disposal of the Punjab Education Department, respondent No,
2. His terms and conditions were intimated to him vide letter dated 22nd April, 1976 with a stipulation that the period of deputation shall not exceed three years. The allegation of the petitioner is that it was done with a view to creating a vacancy for the appointment/promotion of a number of undeserving persons due to political considerations of the former regime. The petitioner served under respondent No, 3 until 20th July 1978, when he was repatriated as per orders of respondent No, 2 to his original post of Deputy Registrar. The petitioner submitted his joining report to the Vice-Chancellor on 4th September, 1978.
3. It is complained by the petitioner that despite his joining report he was neither posted against any job nor was any salary given to him. He went on making requests for it. He was paid his salary till 21st November, 1978, by creating a temporary post for a period of three months only (Annexure 'D') while his juniors continued to occupy the post of Deputy Registrar and continued performing functions thereunder in officiating capacity.
4. As none of the efforts of the petitioner bore any fruit he filed Writ Petition No, 4497-78. He also filed a miscellaneous petition for the release of his salary and posting. On the oral observations of this Court on 2nd May, 1979 the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 gave an undertaking to the effect that salary of the petitioner shall be paid and posting effected. The salary of the petitioner was released from 28th November, 1978 to 30th April, 1979 by creating a supernumerary post (Annexure 'El. The petitioner again made his representation for posting but without any success. His Writ Petition No, 4497-78 was later dismissed. An Intra-Court Appeal No, 139.79 is said to have been filed and is still awaiting decision.
5. The petitioner again persisted in his request for posting. He also made some miscellaneous applications in the Intra-Court Appeal, referred to above, but without any luck. His request for non- payment of salary and effecting posting did not succeed despite oral assurances by the respondents. On 21st November, 1978, the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of powers under section 15(4)
(1) of the University of Punjab Act, 1973, sanctioned a temporary post of Deputy Registrar in N. P. S. 18 for a period of 3 months with effect from 28th August, 1978. It is stated on behalf of the Vice- Chancellor that the above order might have been issued under a mistake as the petitioner stood already transferred from the University to the Director of Public Instructions, Punjab, in pursuance to the order dated 21st November, 1978 of the Chancellor passed under section 11(7)(a). The Director of Public Instructions also posted the petitioner as Principal, Government Inter-College Nowshera vide his order dated 9th May, 1979. As the petitioner did not report for duty there, his posting was cancelled on 20th November, 1979. A fresh order posting him as Principal Inter-College, Narrah Kan joor (Attock) was passed on 15th March, 1980, but this too was not availed of by the petitioner.
Meanwhile, on 4th Febuary 1980 the petitioner filed the present petition alleging that he was entitled to be posted in the University and that neither his salary was paid nor has he been posted.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner is entitled to serve the University and cannot be sent on deputation without his consent. This contention, however, is apparently incorrect. Reference is made to section 11(7)(a) of the University Act of 1973 as amended by Puni ab Act No, XIII of 1975. It is as under "(7) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, Statutes, Regulations or Rules, the Chancellor may-
(a) place the services of any of the officers, teachers or other employees of the University at the dispossal of the Government or any other University or Institution, for such period and on such terms and conditions as may be determined by him; provided that such terms and conditions shall not be less favourable than those admissible to him immediately before his transfer; and
7. The learned counsel then referred to rule 15(1) of, the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 to state that a person, in the service of an autonomus or semi- autonmous organization, who possesses minimum educational qualifications, experience or comparable length of service, prescribed for the post, shall be eligible for the appointment to the said post on deputation, for 'a period, net exceeding three years at a time. Further submitted that the order dated 1st November, 1978, filed by respondent No. 1 as Annex. R/2 with its report/parawise comments dated 25th February, 1980 had never been served on him or the University. He relies on the office order dated 21st November, 1978 (Annex. 'D') wherein the Vice-Chancellor under section 15(4)(1) of the University of Punjab Act, 1973 had sanctioned a temporary post of the Deputy Registrar for a period of three months with effect from 28th August, 1978.
8. The petitioner admittedly belongs to an autonomous body. Under section 11(7)(a) of the University of the Punjab Act, 1973, the services of the petitioner could be placed at the disposal of the Government or any other University or Institution by the Chancellor provided the terms and conditions shall not be less favourable. Further, similar provision has been made in section 44- University Act by an amendment made in December, 1980. The fact that the order dated 1st November, of the Chancellor was there and that the Vice-Chancellor mistakenly issued the Office order dated 21st Nobember, 1978, is proved from the deputation and posting orders of the petitioner as Principal, Inter-College Nawshera (Sargodha) and Principal, Government Inter-College Narrah Kanjoor (Attock).
9. The next plea raised was that as the petitioner was not qualified for the post. Of a Principal, his posting as such was not only mala fide but unlawful. Appendix 'A' of the Service/Recruitment Rules, 1962, of the Education Department enumerates the qualifications of a Principal as under :- "(a) Master's Degree (1st class) from a recognised University with five years' teaching experience in a Degree or Intermediate College; or
(b) a high academic qualification from a foreign University; provided that Indian Universities shall not be deemed to be foreign Universities for the purposes of these qualifications."
' Rule 15(1) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, also provides that an officer can be posted to a post on deputation only if he is duly qualified for it.
10. The learned counsel also relied on the Fazalur Rehman's case (1) to say that as the petitioner was not suitable for the post of Principal, offered to him, he could validly refuse to join it. The learned counsel also alleged mala fides, as stated above, to say that the entire effort was to keep the petitioner out and away from the University so that some undeserving and junior persons could be promoted and posted in his place. The above contention is supported by saying that despite the fact that the petitioner is duly qualified to hold the post of Registrar which is lying since long vacant be is not being allowed to join it.
11. The rules referred to in para. 9 above, do make it quite clear that only such persons can be appointed as Principal who possess the prescribed qualifications. The petitioner states that he is not so qualified and consequently cannot be asked to join as a Principal. This legal and factual {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) P L 1962 Lah. 840 {{FOOT NOTE}} position has not been controverted. In this view of the matter, the petitioner who could be and had lawfully been transferred on deputation to run under the Director of Public Instructions, could not be posted as a Principal.
12. The omission on his part to join that post also cannot be held cognizable in view of the case cited in para. 10 above. The facts of that case were that the petitioner who was posted as Secretary, Municipal Committee, Multan, was declared surplus and offered an alternate post as Chief Officer, Municipal Committee, Burewala. He did not accept that post and was retired from service. The relevant observations of the learned Judges may be reproduced with advantage :- "6 It may be that the petitioner could be, transferred from Multan under the conditions of his service, but as he was transferred to Burewala under the mistaken belief that section 130 of the Ordinance was applicable to his case, the order of transfer cannot be deemed to be valid in law.
The order of removal of the petitioner from service was passed because he did not obey the order of transfer, and as I have held that the order of transfer was not binding, it follows that the order of termination of service, which was passed on account of failure to obey the order of transfer, cannot but be held to be invalid."
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner further pleaded that though his client was prepared even to join the post, to which he had been posted, yet the Education Department created such difficulties in his way that he was practically kept out and away from joining it. He referred to Annex.
P/1 placed on record with his application dated 4th November, 1980. Therein he informed the Director, Public Instructions that he had already made a written request to the Vice-Chancellor for supply of relieving report, salary slip and leave account to enable him to join duties under him. He also referred to Annex. P/2 which is addressed to. The Vice-Chancellor for the supply of the same documents.
14. The Assistant Treasurer of the University issued a certificate on 10th April, 1980, of his last paid salary. On the same date, a letter was issued by the Deputy Registrar of the University enclosing the abovesaid certificate. He also communicated to the petitioner that the letter dated 1st November, 1978, by the Chancellor with a copy endorsed to the petitioner bad been conveyed to the University.
The petitioner was further informed that the University had sent a copy of that letter dated 4th January, 1979, to the petitioner at his address.
15. The Vice Chancellor on 29th April, 1980, was reminded by the petitioner for the supply of the salary slip, relieving slip/report, and leave account with effect from 1967 till date. He complained that despite the fact that there could be no hindrance in furnishing the same, the reluctance to do so was creating hardships for him. He wrote another letter dated 29th May, 1980, to respondent No, 3 to confirm the contents of his letter that the petitioner could not be posted at a suitable post due to the fact that he was awaiting the decision of Writ Petition No, 1155-S-80, and that had not been provided with the relieving slip/report from the University, the salary slip as well as the leave account from 1967. The inaction on the part of the University to do so was again communicated and a further reminder sent to the Vice-Chancellor about the supply of the said documents on 29th May, 1980.
16. The facts as given in paras. 13 to 15 also show that the petitioner was not to be exclusively blamed for his refusal to join the post of Principal, (hough as said above, he was not liable in law to do so. The demand of the documents made by the office of the Director, Public Instructions was not justified as it should have asked the office of the Chancellor to send the necessary particulars as it passed the order of transfer. The office of the Vice-Chancellor, which in fact maintains the record should have responded immediately when a request was made by the petitioner. In view of the above, the petitioner cannot be allowed to be penalised so that his salary etc. Is withheld.
17. For the reasons given above, I hold that though the order of transfer as passed by the Chancellor under section 11(7)(u) of the University of Punjab Act, 1973, is valid and operative, yet the posting orders issued by the Director, Public Instructions were unlawful and hence ineffective and inoperative. Anyhow, the petitioner remains liable to serve the Government of Punjab but shall be entitled to be posted to post, equivalent to his status in the Punjab Universiry, and for which he is duly qualified, as long as the order of the Chancellor is in the field. The petitioner is also entitled to the arrears of his salary etc. The respondent shall pay the costs of the petitioner.