' ABDUL MAJID TIWANA, J.---This judgment shall also deal with and dispose of I.C.A. No, 123 of 1993- LHR, I.C.A. No,13 of 1993-BWP and I.C.A. No, 14 of 1993-BWP, all arising out of the judgment, dated 1-3- 1993, by which a learned Single Judge at Bahawalpur Bench accepted W.P. No, 1391 of 1992-BWP filed by Professor Dr. Muhammad Belal Sukhera, against Islamia University, Bahawalpur, through its Vice-Chancellor and six otheRs, These appeals have arisen in the following cricumstances: ' The petitioner, claiming himself as Professor and Chairman of Department of Physics and Dean of Faculty of Science, Islamia University, Bahawalpur, besides previously holding many other positions in the University, alleged that in the discharge of his responsibilities in various capacities in the University, he had been candidly expressing his honest views in the meetings of different bodies to the annoyance of the Vice-Chancellor (respondent No,2) against his autocratic style of managing the affairs of the University and ruthless exercise of powers by him in that regard, as a result of which he earned his displeasure and to eliminate the chances of positive criticism, he (respondent No, 2) decided to oust him (petitioner) and other consciencious members from the Syndicate of the University. According to him to achieve his object, respondent No,2 thought proper to constitute an electorate of his choice and in that connection he ostensibly exercising the delegated powers of Chancellors's Committee under section 50 of the Islamia University of Bahawalpur Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), made ad hoc appointments (as detailed in paragraph No,3 of the writ petition). He alleged that respondent No,2, despite the adverse decision, dated 11-11- 1992, of the Lahore High Court in LCAs. Nos,15, 16 and 17 of 1992, declaring the orders passed by him under the delegated powers under section 50 ibid as illegal, proceeded to issue Notification No, 9585/ Estb. 1, dated 12-11-1992, with a view to validate the aforesaid ad hoc appointments by stating therein that the same would be deemed to have been also made under section 15(3) of the said Act.
2. The petitioner further alleged that elections to the four seats of the Syndicate of the University were to be held by and from different categories of University Teachers and for that purpose respondent No,3, in his capacity as Returning Officer, issued preliminary electoral rolls separately for each category of teachers, namely, Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors and Lecturers and by notification, dated 6-10-1992, he invited objections for the inclusion and exclusion of names from such rolls. According to him, he as a Professor, Dr. Zaheer Jang Khatak as Associate Professor, and Mr. Amjad Hussain Bokhari filed objections against the inclusion of the names of certain Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors and Lecturers listed in paragraph No,3 of the petition and against the exclusion of the name of Professor Ilahi Bakhsh Jarwala, Professor of Arabic, but the objections so raised, were rejected by respondent No,3, vide his decision dated 19- 10-1992, He asserted that aggrieved by this order, he (petitioner) filed a revision under section 7 of the said Act before the Review Committee but the same was rejected, vide order dated 26-10-1992.
According to the petitioner, the election for the four seats of Syndicate allocated to the University Teachers was held on 7-11-1992, as a result of which Dr. Muhammad Shafiq Khan (respondent No, 4) was declared elected for the seat of Professor, Dr. Muhammad Siddiq (respondent No, 5) was elected for the seat of Associate Professor, Dr. Javid Akhtar Chccma (respondent No,6) was elected for the seat of Assistant Professor and Mr. Maksoof Akhtar (respondent No, 7) for the seat of Lecturer in the Syndicate. He contended that after the constitution of Syndicate in the manner aforesaid, respondent No,2 fixed 21-11-1992 as the next date of Syndicate meeting. Aggrieved by these proceedings the petitioner brought W.P. No, 1391 of 1992, giving rise to these I.CAs. Challenging the ad hoc appointments of University Teachers listed in para. No, 3 thereof, their electoral lists for the election to four seats of Syndicate and the election itself on the grounds that--
(i) the ad hoc appointments of the persons mentioned in paragraph No, 3 of the petition were neither made by a competent authority, nor in accordance with the mode of appointment prescribed by Statute No, 5 of the Islamia University Teachers (Appointment and Services) 1977;
(ii) appointments made by respondent No, 2 could neither be made under the delegated powers of Chancellor's Committee, nor under section 15(3) of the said Act as were perported to have been made, vide Notification No, 9585/Estb. I dated 12-11-1992 which was issued illegally and with mala fide intention in order to circumvent the decision of the High Court, dated 11-11-1992, in I.C. As. Nos, 15, 16 and 17 of 1992 and W.Ps. Nos, 1072 and 1102 of 1992 wherein it was categorically held that the order of delegation, dated 28-2-1981, passed by the Chancellor's Committee under section 50 ibid was a dead law, more so when a thing which could not be done directly, could also not be permitted to be done indirectly;
(iii) with the inclusion of the names of the persons mentioned in paragraph No, 3 of the writ petition, the electoral college was rendered illegal;
(iv) the constitution of Review Committee by respondent No, 2 was also illegal because the Chairman of such committee was the same person whose entry in the electoral rolls was objected to and it was hit by the principle that 'no body could be a judge in his own cause';
(v) the Notification, dated 26-10-1992, rejecting the objections and the revision petition of the petitioner and others against the electoral rolls was illegal;
(vi) the election held on the basis of illegally prepared electoral rolls by itself was void and as such the constitution of the Syndicate on the basis of such election was also illegal; and
(vii) since the constitution of the Syndicate was improper and incomplete, its meeting held on 21- 11-1992 and the decisions taken by it were also without lawful authority. The petitioner sought a declaration to that effect.
3. Respondents Nos, 2 and 3, in their parawise comments tried to defend all the impugned actions.
They also challenged the locus standi of the petitioner to file the constitution petition. Respondent No,2 tried to justify the ad hoc appointments of different persons mentioned in paragraph No, 3 of the petition with reference to the powers of the Syndicate as specified in section 25 of the said Act as also on the basis of his emergency powers under section 15(3) thereof.
4. The learned Single Judge, with reference to the decision of the High Court in the aforesaid ICAs and on his own examination of various provisions of the said Act, came to the conclusion ( by the judgment now under challenge) that since the ad hoc appointments were not validly made, the constitution of electoral college by them had no legal efficacy and the entire superstructure built thereon was without lawful authority. He also held that the petitioner had a locus standi to file the writ petition because he was appointed as Chairman of the Department of the Physics for three years from 24-10-1991 to 23-10-1994, vide Notification dated 13-2-1992, but his tenure was subsequently reduced to two years and for the remaining one year Dr. Barkat Ali Shafiq was appointed in his place and since this order was prejudicial to his interest, he was an aggrieved party. He further held that since the Syndicate was an illegally constituted body, the orders passed by it were prejudicial to the interest of certain teachers, including the petitioner. In the penultimate paragraph of the judgment, the learned Single Judge was pleased to make some adverse remarks about the conduct of respondent No,2 in following words:-- "Before parting with the judgment I must express my dismay over the conduct of the Vice- Chancellor which was never equalled by the exalted position he occupies. Being head of a great seat of learning, he ought to have watched that the acts done by him or his sub-ordinates were in accordance with Islamic principles of Adl-o-Ahsaan. In the instant case it was nowhere discernible that the Vice-Chancellor was keen to conduct the affairs of the University in consonance with the law, rules, principles of justice, equity, good conscience and fairplay."
5. Aggrieved by the said decision, dated 1-3-1993, respondents Nos,1 and 3 in the writ petition have filed I.C.A. No, 118 of 1993-LHR against the writ petitioner, who has been arrayed as respondent No, 1, while respondents Nos,4 to 7 therein have been impleaded as respondents Nos, 2 to 5 herein.
Aggrieved by the same judgment, Farooq Hayat and 23 others have filed I.C.A. No,123 of 1993-LHR, Dr. Ghulam Qanbar Abbasi and 7 others have brought I.CA. No, 13 of 1993-BWP, and Dr. Shafique Khan and 3 others have preferred I.CA. No, 14 of 1993-BWP. It may be mentioned here that the appellants in the last-mentioned I.C.A. Were respondents Nos, 4 to 7 in the writ petition and they have filed this appeal mostly on the ground that in the writ petition they were condemned unheard.
All these appeals are being disposed of together as they arise out of the same basic judgment.
6. We have heard .At sonic length the learned counsel for the parties, including the Vice-Chancellor of the University, one of the appellants in LCA. No, 118 of 1993-LHR. He has appeared of his own accord. Dr. Muhammad Bilal Sukhera, the sole petitioner in the main writ petition, who is one of the respondents in all the I.C.As., has also addressed us in the absence of his counsel on the last date of hearing.
7. The Vice-Chancellor and his learned counsel Raja Muhammad Akram, Advocate, have made the decision of these appeals easier. They have volunteered and assured us that all ad hoc appointments so far made (by the Vice-Chancellor) stand revoked and various vacancies so caused, and in future likely to be caused, shall be filled up strictly on merits in accordance with the law on the subject, on the basis of open competition after due publication in the newspapeRs, We have invited their attention, as also of all other concerned, to the order, dated 19-1-1993, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Human Rights cases, which has been circulated for compliance by the Government of the Punjab, SGA&I Department, vide SOR-III-2-2/91, dated 31-1-1993, to all the departments in the Province, including the heads of autonomous and semiautonomous bodies.
The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereunder:-- "While inquiring into various complaints of violation of Fundamental/Human Rights, it has been found that the Federal Government, Provincial Government, Statutory Bodies and the Public Authorities have been making inititial recruitments both ad hoc and regular, to posts and offices, without publicity and properly advertising the vacancies and at times by converting ad hoc appointments into regular appointments. This practice is prima facie violative of Fundamental Right (Article 19 of the Constitution) guaranteeing to every citizen freedom of profession.
' Subject to notice to all concerned, and subject to final orders after full hearing in the matter, it is ordered as an interim measure that the violation of this Fundamental/Human Rights shall be discontinued forthwith.
' Steps shall immediately be taken to rectify, so as to bring the practice in accord with the Constitutional requirement."
8. It has been noticed that the learned Single Judge had, while dealing with the writ petition giving rise to these appeals, issued notice only to respondents Nos,1 to 3 therein and, after receiving their comments and hearing their counsel, disposed it of by the judgment now under challenge.
Somehow or other, notice of the writ petition was not issued to respondents Nos,4 to 7 and they were not afforded the opportunity of being head. This was their grouse and, as already indicated, they have brought I.C.A. No, 14 of 1993-BWP. It has also been noticed that the impugned judgment has a far-reaching effect on the officers and employees of the University and its day to day routine working. As a necessary consequence thereof, all ad hoc appointees, whether they were officers or employees, lost the jobs or had the apprehension to lose the job, without availing of the opportunity of explaining their position. It is for that reason that respondents Nos, 4 to 7 in the writ petition, besides ad hoc University Teachers (mentioned in paragraph No,3 of the writ petition) have come up in appeals to this Court and on their behalf the principle of audi A alteram partem has been pressed into service. No doubt, they were not afforded the opportunity of being heard by the learned Single Judge, but since they have been heard through their counsel by us, the requirement of this rule stands amply complied with and the impugned judgment cannot be set aside for this reason. However, we are inclined to narrow down the scope of its operation to the extent it has adversely effected the day to day working of the University and its various bodies. To be more precise, it shall not affect the decisions of the Syndicate taken in different meetings except to the extent of approving the ad hoc appointments of the University Teachers such as Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors and Lecturers mentioned in paragraph No,3 of the writ petition and other employees. This infirmity has been conceded by the Vice-Chancellor himself on account of the basic defect of lack of his authority and, competency. His concession is in accord with the abovementioned order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We have made clear to the Vice- Chancellor that he had no authority to make ad hoc appointments, neither as delegatee of Chancellor's Committee under section 50 of the said Act, nor he could use his emergency powers under section 15(3) read with section 16(1) thereof.
9. During the course of hearing, the Vice-Chancellor and his counsel have requested for the expunction of remarks recorded by the learned Single Judge in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned judgment, as reproduced above. They have also prayed for the remission of costs imposed on the Vice-Chancellor. In view of his exalted position in one of the highest seats of learning in the country, we are inclined to accede to his request and direct that paragraph No, 8 of the impugned judgment shall stand deleted as if it had never been a part thereof and as a necessary consequence thereof, the costs imposed on him shall stand remitted.
10. During his address, Dr. Muhammad Bilal Sukhera, the writ petitioner (now respondent No,1), has expressed apprehension that the Vice-Chancellor might harm him for filing the writ petition against him. We have asked the Vice-Chancellor and his learned counsel not to adopt any vindictive course against him and they have assured us that no such measure shall be adopted by him (Vice-Chancellor). This assurance shall, however, not absolve the writ petitioner of any liability which he may otherwise incur in normal course, for instance, his unauthorised stay abroad, which has been hinted at during discussion. By bringing the writ petition against the University, he has, no doubt, exposed certain illegalities being committed by some of its high-placed functionaries, wittingly or unwittingly, and through this process he has succeeded in entailing their rectification to a greater extent and we hope that it shall serve as an eye-opener and guideline to them for all time to come, but at the same time we would expect him (writ petitioner) not to become an obstinate litigant, running up to the law Courts on every passing impulse to involve the institution and his opponents therein in a protracted litigation.
11. At the end, the Vice Chancellor has shown us a poster and says that he and his family members are being maligned by the writ petitioner and his partymen, including Dr. Zaheer Jang Khatak, who is also present in the Court room, by publishing and distributing these posters in the University premises in large number and he is working in difficult circumstances. Both of them deny having any hand in this matter. The poster is highly scandalous, blasphemous and mischievous, purported to have been published by a student organisation in the University. It behoves nobody, much less a group of University Teachers and the students, who all arc engaged in the noble pursuit of dissemination and acquisition of knowledge, to indulge in such an undesirable activity. The worse thing which a teacher can do is to instigate students against his colleagues, particularly the head of the institution. Whosoever has done this, has done no service to the institution and we fervently hope that this act shall not be repeated.
12. In view of the above, 1.C.A. No, 118 of 1993 is accepted to the extent indicated in paragraphs No,8 and 9 ibid, while the other I.C.As. Are dismissed, with no order as to costs.