' MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J:--- The petitioner, through instant Constitutional petition, questions the legality and propriety of notification dated 6-11-2012, issued by the Registrar University of Peshawar.
2. Briefly, facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Director, Centre of Pashto Language and Literature, University of Peshawar, for a period of three years vide notification dated 11-8-2010. Thereafter, through notification dated 23-11-2011 merger of Pashto Academy and the Department of Pashto Centre of Pashto Language and Literature was withdrawn, thus independent status of both the institutions was restored. Dr.Salma Shaheen and the petitioner were directed to look after the affairs of Pashto Academy and the Department of Pashto as Director and Chairman, respectively till further order. With the approval of Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Salma Shaheen through notification dated 26-5-2011,was appointed as Director Pashto Academy for a period of 3 years whereas no order was made in respect of the petitioner. Thereafter, vide notification dated 6-11- 2012, the syndicate in its 412th meeting held on 15-9-2012, confirmed the notification dated 26-5- 2011 in respect of Dr. Salma Shaheen and with respect to the petitioner it was mentioned that he should be approved as Chairman "for 3 years for the remaining period". Impugned Notification was issued vide No,214/Acad-I dated 6-11-2012 and being aggrieved, the petitioner seek redressal through the instant Constitutional Petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the joint posting order of respondent No,5 i,e, Dr.Salma Shaheen, as Director Pashto Academy, University. of Peshawar as well as that of petitioner as Chairman, Department of Pashto was made to look after the affairs vide order dated 25-3-2011. Thereafter, the permanent posting order of Dr. Salma Shaheen as Director Pashto Academy for a period of 3 years was made vide notification dated 26-5-2011, whereas the appointment orders in respect of petitioner was not notified as in case of respondent No,5. The petitioner made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor and Chairman of Syndicate through Dean for review of order dated 25-3-2011, but despite the fact that the matter was placed before the Syndicate, no action was taken in its meeting held on 15-9-2012. He further contended that notification dated 6-11-2012 is not ' only discriminatory but speaks of its own mala fide.
4. Conversely, the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the review/appeal is still pending disposal before the Syndicate and also before the Chancellor, thus the present petition is pre-mature. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. From perusal of the record, it reveals that vide notification dated 25-3-2011, the charge of Director, Pashto Academy was entrusted to Dr.Salma Shaheen, while the petitioner was entrusted the charge of Chairman Department of Pashto to look after the affairs till further order. Later on, through a proper notification dated 26-5-2011, the Vice-Chancellor issued appointment order of Dr.Salma Shaheen, as Director, Pashto Academy for a period of 3 years, whereas no proper notification was issued about the appointment of the petitioner as Chairman, Department of Pashto, University of Peshawar. He was entrusted with the responsibility to look after the affairs of Pashto Department. Though his appeal/representation was pending disposal before the Vice- Chancellor and the Syndicate from April, 2011, but for the reason best known to the respondents, no heed was paid to respond the same. The appointment order of Dr. Salma Shaheen has been confirmed, whereas no decision was taken with respect to appoint/regularization of the petitioner.
We have noticed that in respect of Director, Pashto Academy notification was issued for a period of 3 years with effect from 26-5-2011, whereas through the same notification in respect of Chairman Department of Pashto, it was inserted as 26-5-2011 (for the remaining period).
6. Although, the review petition was pending disposal before the Vice-Chancellor for forwarding the same, to be submitted before the Syndicate and the same was forwarded by the Dean vide entry dated 22-4-2011, but after a lapse of more than 1-1/2 years when the meeting was held on 15-9- 2012, no action was, taken on the review/appeal of the petitioner and notification was issued with the remarks that the services of petitioner are confirmed for the remaining period. The petitioner was only authorized, vide notification dated 25-3-2011, to look after the affairs of Pashto Department and no formal notification, for his appointment was issued.
7. So far as the objection taken by the learned counsel for respondents that the appeal is pending disposal and the petition is pre-mature, we do not agree with this contention. Beside reminders, appeal/review was not considered for a long period of two years, without any justification by the respondents. Present is a case of sheer discrimination and against the Constitutional guarantee of service, and equality of citizens provided to the petitioner. Petitioner, in circumstances, could not be discriminated without any cogent reason by violating the provisions of Article 25 of the Constitution and it was the duty of the respondents to protect his rights, enshrined in Atticle 9 of the Constitution. While dealing with the case where the aggrieved party had alleged discrimination, the Court could not overlook the implication thereof. Equal treatment of all similarly situated was the basic principle which rested justice under the law. If even handed justice was not administered, same could have many adverse and negative effects on the society and could cause discontentment and frustration in the social set up and there could be no denial that social justice was an objective and enshrined in the Constitution. Reliance is placed on Mehr Muhammad Nawaz v. Managing Director Small Business Finance Corporation (2009 SCM R 187) .
' Under the circumstances, this petition is allowed and the notification dated 6-11-2012 in respect of petitioner to the extent of entry "for the remaining period" is declared unlawful, unjustified, discriminatory and ineffective upon the rights of the petitioner. The respondents are directed to issue a proper notification in respect of services of the petitioner, as is done in the case of Director/respondent No,5.