By way of this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioners call in question the process of recruitment for the post of Vice Chancellor, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that this Court in a judgment reported as Prof. Dr. Zafar Iqbal ..Vs..
Province of Punjab and others (2018 PLC (C.S) 267) set-aside the recommendations of the previous Search Committee and passed a direction for constitution of a new Search Committee; that Government of Punjab in compliance with the above judgment constituted a new Search Committee vide notification dated 12.03.2018, which in a mechanical manner and without applying its mind endorsed the recommendations of the previous Search Committee without conducting interview s of the candidates; that act of the new Search Committee is illegal, unlawful, void ab initio and in contravention of the above reported judgment.
3. On the converse, learned counsels for the respondents submitted that in the cited judgment this Court did not pass any direction for re-initiation of the entire process and it was left at the discretion of the new Search Committee either to approve the earlier process or re-initiate the process; that the new Search Committee reviewed the whole process of the case and unanimously endorsed the recommendations of the previous Search Committee and submitted summary to the Governor/ Chancellor/Competent Authority vide Diary No.46 F dated 12.02.2019 for appointment of the Vice Chancellor; that an other candidate also challenged the process of appointment of the Vice Chancellor by filing writ petition No.188573 of 2018 in which this ground was also agitated and this Court vide judgment dated 20.12.2018 has dismissed the said writ petition.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsels and gone through the record.
5. I have minutely gone through reported judgment whose deviation is alleged by the petitioners in this writ petition.
The grievance of the petitioners in that writ petition was that the process adopted for appointment of Vice Chancellor in the University of Agriculture , Faisalabad was not according to law laid down by this Court in judgment reported as Punjab Higher Education Commission .V. Aurangzeb Alamgir and others (PLD 2017 Lahore 489). It was prayed that the entire process of appointment of Vice Chancellor ought to have been initiated after constitution of the new Search Committe e. This prayer was dealt with in the para No.10 of the above reported judgment in the following manner:- "As far as the earlier national and interna tional advertisements for the posts of Vice-Chancellor dated 23.08.2016 are concerned, I see no illegality in relying on this process, as long as, the candidature of the applicants is processed by the new Search Committee. The substantive part of the process is the scrutiny by the Search Committee and not the act of the advertisement, unless and until it is shown that the advertisement was deficient in material particulars. The contention of the petitioner also loses its significance when the petitioner is also a part of the pool of applicants who applied pursuant to the said advertisement. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the appointment process of the Vice-Chancellor on this score."
6. From bare reading of the above observations, it is abundantly clear that the process for appointment of the post of Vice Chancellor remained intact. The presence of Dr. Akmal Hussain as an expert on the Search Committee was also challenged in the above cited writ petition on the ground that he had no expertise in agriculture. To this extent constitution of the search committee was declared invalid in the following terms:- " Government is directed to constitute a new Search Committee in line with the above definition of a subject/field expert and in the manner provided in the aforesaid judgment (mentioned hereunder). The pool of names tabulated in pursuance to the earlier advertisement shall be put through the new Search Committee, as directed in the aforesaid judgment, only if the new Search Committee is satisfied and approves the earlier advertisement. In case the Search Committee is not satisfied with the earlier advertisement, the Search Committee is free to restart the process of advertisem ent according to the directions give in the Punjab Higher Education Commission case."
7. It is thus abundantly clear that no where in the above judgment this Court passed direction for re-initiation of the entire process as prayed by the writ petitioners therein and it was completely left at the discretion of the new Search Committee either to send pool of names tabulated by the earlier Search Committee through the new constituted committee or to re-initiate the process. According to the record the new Search Committee reviewed the whole process of the case in detail i.e. advertisement dated 23.08.2016, CVs of candidates, Guidelines/ Procedure for Search Committee, complete process of interviews of candidates for the post of Vice Chancellor conducted by the previous Search Committee and unanimously endorsed the recommendations of the previous Search Committee. In no manner the act of new Search Committee can be termed in derogation of above reported judgment. It is, therefore, manifest that this writ petition is a classic example of abuse of process of law, as it is devoid of any merit or question of law which could be raised afresh before this Court. Resultantly, this petition being without any substance is dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/- each to be paid by each of the petitioner in the national exchequer within fifteen days with a copy of the receipt to the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court.
8. Before parting with this order , I may observe that the post of Vice Chanc ellor, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad is lying vacant since 23.01.2017. In the reported judgment whose violation is alleged in this writ petition, the Government of the Punjab was directed to expedite the remaining process of appointment of the Vice Chancellor at the earliest. In compliance with the said direction when the new Search Committee forwarded its recommendations one of the candidates namely Prof. Dr. Muhammad Sarwar challenged the process of appointment of Vice Chancellor inter alia on the same grounds as agitated in this writ petition by filing writ petition No.18857/18 and there by managed to prolong the matter for a considerable period of time. The said writ petition was finally dismissed vide judgment dated 20.12.2018 announced on 04.02.2019 with a specific direction to complete the process of appointment of the Vice Chancellor forthwith. After dismissal of the said writ petition, the present petitioners have emerged on the scene and filed the instant writ petition again challenging the process of appointment of the Vice Chancellor which apparently is also a calculated move to further prolong the matter . It is a matter of great concern that one of the largest Universities of Asia is functioning without a permanent Vice Chancellor for the last two years. According to the report and prawise comments of the respondents a summary for the appointment of Vice Chancellor , University of Agriculture, Faisalabad has been submitted to the Governor/Competent Authority vide Diary No.46-F dated 12.02.2019. It is, therefore, directed that the competent authority shall notify the person, highest in merit unless there are cogent reasons for not appointing him which shall be recorded in writing, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order under intimation to the Addl. Registrar (J) of this Court.