' SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI, J.--- With this single order, we intend to take up and decide the above titled intra court appeals, Crl. Org. And Writ Petitions filed under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 and Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan as in these appeals and writ petitions, the common questions of law and facts are involved.
2. The appellants in ICA No.179-W/2012 have challenged the order dated 6-4-2012 passed in Writ Petition No.18/2012. The appellants in ICA No.98/2013 have challenged the judgment dated 21-1-2013 whereby the Writ Petition No.2937/2012 of the appellants along with Writ Petition No.2621/2012 filed by the appellant in ICA No.99/2013 was dismissed. The appellants in ICAs Nos.191/2015 and 192/2015 have, challenged the order dated 18-3-2015 whereby their writ petitions were dismissed. Likewise, the appellant of ICA No.427/2014 challenged the order dated 21-5-2014 whereby his Writ Petition No.1713/2012 was dismissed and the appellant of ICA No.187/2015 has also challenged the order dated 24-3-2015 whereby her Writ Petition No.5138/2014 was dismissed by the learned single judge in chamber.
3. Precisely, the facts are that Dr. Shameem Tariq had filed Writ Petition No.18/2012 whereby he challenged the appointment of Dr. Sadia Tahir appellant No.4 as Professor Urdu in BPS-19. Learned single judge in chamber accepted the said writ petition vide order dated 6-4-2012. The appellant challenged the said order through, the instant ICA which was dismissed by the learned Division Bench of this court on 14-5-2012. The appellant No.4 Dr. Sadia Tahir challenged the said order in the august Supreme Court of Pakistan through Civil Petition No.1250 of 2012 and the apex court of Pakistan remanded the intra court appeal for decision afresh. In the Writ Petition No.18/2012 the learned single judge in chamber repealed the contention that the writ petition was not competent against the International Islamic University. On the other hand, the writ petitions of the appellants Muhammad Idrees, Imtiaz Azeem, Muhammad Asif, Furqan Shabbir and Ume Oman have been dismissed on the basis of jurisdiction by observing that International Islamic University Islamabad is not a person hence not amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the. Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. There are two divergent decisions of this court one in ICA No.501/2014 wherein it is declared that the Islamic International University does not fall within the definition of person for the purpose of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The other decision has been rendered in ICA No.204/2012 wherein it is observed that the rules of International Islamic University being statutory in nature, therefore, it is amenable to the writ jurisdiction. Vide order dated 18-2-2015, Division Bench requested the Hon'ble Chief Justice for the constitution of larger Bench, resultantly Hon'ble Chief justice accorded approval of the constitution of larger Bench.
4. Learned counsel for the parties have rendered valuable assistance on the issues of the jurisdiction of this court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the status of the International Islamic. University whether is of juristic person or not and whether the rules of International Islamic University are of statutory nature or otherwise and lastly that whether the International Islamic University is amenable or not to the writ jurisdiction.
5. Having perused the esteemed case-laws, it is observed that Islamic University Islamabad was established under the Islamic University Ordinance, 1980 (Ordinance LIII of 1980). Subsequently, the said university was reconstituted and renamed as the International Islamic University by virtue of International Islamic University Ordinance (Ordinance No XXX of 1985). Section 4 of the Ordinance No.XXX of 1985 provides that the university shall consist of (i) the Chancellor, the Pro-Chancellor, Rector the President, Directors General, the Vice Presidents, Deans and the Directors, (ii) members of the board of trustees, the board of governors, the academic council and other authorities, (iii)
Teachers and (iv) Research Officers as may be prescribed. The subsection (3) of section 4 provides that the university shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and common seal and shall by the said name sue and be sued. The subsection (4) of section 4 provides that the university shall be competent to acquire and hold property. The perusal of section 4 by itself manifastive of the fact that International Islamic University Islamabad is an organic whole and a perpetual succession, common seal and the authority to acquire and hold the property both movable and immovable.-
6. The Ordinance No. XXX of 1985 was promulgated by the President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan who by virtue of section 9 of the Ordinance shall be the Chancellor of the university. The President of Pakistan in his capacity as a Chancellor has to appoint Pro Chancellor and Rector of the University under sections 11 and 12 of the Ordinance. Section 16 of the Ordinance provides the different authorities and foremost of the authorities concerning the International Islamic University Islamabad, is the board of trustees defined in section 70. The Chairman of the Board of Trustees is to be the chancellor who in his term under section 9 is to be the President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Inter alia the Chief Justice of Pakistan; Chief Justice of Federal Shariat Court and Secretary Federal Ministry of Education are the members of Board of Trustees. Chapter V of the Ordinance No. XXX of 1985, sections 28 to 30 provides for the formulation of statues, regulations and rules. The bare perusal of these sections reveals that all the rules and regulations formulated under the Ordinance are statutory in nature and there can be no cavil to the proposition that the International Islamic University Islamabad is a juristic person for the purpose of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and it is having the statutory rules and regulations.
' The word person is defined in Article 199(5) of the Constitution which provides that person includes anybody, politic or corporate, any authority of or under the control of he Federal Government or of Provincial Court or any court or Tribunal, other than Supreme Court, a High Court or a Court or Tribunal established under the law relating to the Armed Forces of Pakistan. In the case reported as PLD 2002 SC 326, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan declared that Aitcheson College comes within the definition of person under Article 199(5) of the Constitution. In the case of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. Tanveer-ur-Rehman (PLD 2010 SC 676) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:--- "Now let us see what is meant by the expression "performing functions in connection with affairs of the federation". The expression clearly connotes governmental or state functions involving an element of an exercise of public power. The functions may be the traditional policy functions of the state, involving the maintenance of law and order or they may be functions concerning economic development, social welfare, education, public utility services and other state enterprises of an industrial or commercial nature. Generally these functions are to be performed by persons or agencies directly appointed, controlled and financed by the State, either by federation or provincial government. On the other hand, private organizations or persons, as distinguished from government or semi government agencies and functionaries, cannot be regarded as a person performing functions in connection with affairs of the federation or a province, simply for the reason that their activities are regulated by law made by the State. The primary test must always be:--- ' Whether the functions interested to the organization or person concerned are indeed function of the State involving some exercise of sovereign or public power, ii . Whether the control of the organization vests in substantial manner in the hands of government and iii. Whether the bulk of funds is provided by the State If these conditions are fulfilled, then the person including a body politic or body corporate may indeed be regarded as a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the federation or a province, otherwise not."
7. The learned Division Bench in its judgment dated 22-1-2015 held that the International Islamic University Islamabad is not a person carrying the affairs of federation, therefore, it is not amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction. The preamble of the Ordinance XXX of 1985 reveals that the university has been established to encourage and promote education, training and research and Islamic learning. It is provided in the principles of policy in the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan that the citizen of the state would be provided the opportunity to mold their lives in accordance with the principle of Islam and the university was established to propagate the knowledge of Islam, therefore, this university was primarily established to carry out the affairs of the federation and constitution. Subsection (5) of section 9 of Ordinance XXX of 1985 provides a direct role of the President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan being the Chancellor of the University in the affairs of the University. Though the President of Pakistan is not the Chairman of the Board of Governors but he has to appoint Director who is the Chairman of the Board of Governors. The Board of Trustees is the ultimate body controlling whole of the affairs of the university and it has to approve the recommendation of Board of Governor, therefore, the President of Pakistan has a direct control in all the affairs of the university, therefore, the university is the person performing the functions about the affairs of the federation. Moreover, IIU is a public Sector University bulk of its funds (development and non-development) are being provided by the Federal Government regularly. Higher Education Commission (HEC) has jurisdiction with regard to aspect falling in its domain over IIU. In these circumstances it is held that the view expressed by this court in ICA No.204/2012 is correct enunciation of the law on the subject.
8. Now adverting to the merits of the case of the appellants in ICA No.179/2012 it is observed that the appellants have challenged the impugned order dated 6-4-2012 and the grounds of attack are mentioned in Para No.4 of the memo. Of writ petition. The ground No.1 is that the impugned judgment is in violation of law and not based upon natural justice, fair play and equity. Having gone through the impugned order it is observed that there is nothing in the order to hold that it is in violation of law, natural justice, fair play and equity. Rather the learned single judge in chamber considered each and every aspect of the case in its true perspective and passed a well-reasoned judgment. The objection about the jurisdiction of this court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan has been considered in the Supra part of the judgment and it has been held that the International Islamic University Islamabad is a person amenable to be constitutional jurisdiction of this court. As far as the remaining objections of appellants are concerned it is held that these objections are of no substance as neither the learned single judge in chamber nor this bench is required to probe the controversial facts and it has to record the findings on the basis of admitted and proved facts. Learned single judge in chamber rightly took notice of the admitted facts and accepted the writ petitions in accordance with law. The impugned order is not amenable to any interference; therefore, the instant Intra court appeal merits, dismissal.
9. As far the cases of appellants in ICA No.98/2013, ICA No.99/2013, ICA No.191/2015, ICA No.192/2015 and ICA No.187/2015 are concerned, the writ petitions of these appellants have been dismissed by single judge in chamber on the wrong assumption that the International Islamic University Islamabad is not a person amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court. In view of the findings recorded about the legal status of International Islamic University Islamabad and its rules and regulations, these appeals are hereby accepted and the impugned order whereby the writ petitions have been dismissed are hereby set-aside, the writ petitions would be deemed to have been pending and the learned single judge in chamber would decide these writ petition on merit, in accordance with law. The Writ Petitions Nos.3135/2013 and 2910/2014 be placed before the concerned single bench for their decision on merit.
10. As far as the ICA No.427/2014 is concerned it is noted that the appellant Javed Anwar had instituted Writ Petition No.1713 of 2012 whereby he challenged the termination order dated 30-1-2012, the order dated 5-9-2011 regarding extension of probation period and order dated 14-11-2011 about the rejection of- the departmental representation of the petitioner. This ICA of the appellant be placed before some Division Bench to be decided in accordance with law.
11. As far as the Crl. Original No.345/2014 of the petitioner is concerned. This be also placed before the concerned Bench for its decision in accordance with law. The crux of the above discussion is that the ICA No. 179-W/2012 is hereby dismissed, ICAs Nos.98/2013, 99/2013, 191/2015, 192/2015 and 187/2015 are hereby accepted and the Writ Petitions are remanded for decision afresh, the ICA No.427/2014, Cr 1. Org. No.345/2014, Writ Petition No.3135/2013 and Writ Petition No.2910/2014 are directed to be placed before the concerned benches for decision in accordance with law.