' The facts leading to this writ petition are that the petitioner is an Associate Professor and Chairman of Physics Department in the Islamia University, Bahawalpur, and having 23 years of unblemished service record to his credit applied against an advertised seat of Professor in BPS-20 in the University; having the requisite qualification and was the only candidate to compete for the said post; the petitioner as alleged had strained relations with respondent No, 2 since 1977. This background maneouvred respondent No, 2 to influence on one hand two Pakistani referees to undermine the quality of work and research conducted by the present petitioner and the Selection Board of the University to refrain from recommending the name of the petitioner as Professor against the said advertised post, while on the other hand, pursuaded its Syndicate to disallow the appeal preferred before the Syndicate of Islamia University, Bahawalpur; hence, this petition.
2. The petitioner's research papers were sent to three referees as required under the appointment of Statute and approved by the Syndicate, being appointing authority, the Pakistani referee did not recommend the case of the petitioner, being of low quality of his research papers, as required for the said post. The Selection Board after taking into consideration, the reports of the referees and interviewing the petitioner was of the unanimous opinion that the petitioner was incompetent for the said post. The Selection Board constituted under the Islamia University of Bahawalpur Act, 1975 comprises of:
(I) Vice-Chancellor, Islamia University, Bahawalpur, Chairman;
(II) Professor Dr. Muhammad Nazir Romani, Vice-Chancellor, Quaid-iAzam University, Islamabad, Member;
(III) Chaudhry Sakhawat Ali, Member, Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore, Member;
(IV) Mr. Justice (Retired) Khizar Hayat, Judge, Lahore High Court, Member;
(V) Professor Dr. Iqbal Ahmad, Principal, Quaid-i-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur, Member;
(VI) Professor Dr. G.M. Habib Ullah, Dean, Faculty of Science, Islamia University, Bahawalpur, Member; and
(VII) Three experts in the relevant field, at the option of above Syndicate.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that two referees out of three under the influence of respondent No, 2 tried to undermine the quality of work and research conducted by the petitioner carries weight, as the reports of the three referees, referred to above, have not been placed before the Court to ascertain the propriety and genuineness of the reports. I am of the prima facie view that respondent No, 2 though, being Chairman of the Selection Board, is not in a position to influence the abovementioned members and manoeuvre rejection or selection of any candidate by the august body which consists of men of calibre and dignity reports might have played its role as alleged by the petitioner. So far the contention of the learned counsel for the University, the appointment of the petitioner as Professor against the advertised post was non- statutory and petition under Article 199 of the Constitution was not competent is concerned, ordinarily this Court in writ jurisdiction does not interfere with the decision of a Tribunal or Authority competent in law to decide the matter. The decision of the Selection Committee/Board, prima facie, does not suffer from any jurisdictional defect. However, the narration of petitioner's alleged enmity with respondent No, 2 and the alleged influence on referees warranted calling for comments from respondent No,
2. The petitioner's appeal was not entertained by the Syndicate of the University on the basis of unanimous decision of the Selection Committee and such decision cannot be interfered in writ jurisdiction. The Constitutional jurisdiction as enshrined by Article 199 of the Constitution is essentially a discretionary one and the Court is under no obligation to grant relief in exercise thereof; but it is true in case where a right of appeal is not expressly provided in the statute and requires interpretation, whether such right exists or does not exist, the party approaching the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction shall not be deprived of filing a Constitutional petition on the sole ground that the alternate remedy was available and could be inferred. The petitioner's appointment, being non-statutory, the Constitutional petition was not competent in law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of University of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others v. Ch. Sardar Ali (1992 SCM R 1093).
4. I am constrained not to narrate the allegations and counter-allegations by the petitioner as well as by respondent No, 2 considering the office of the Vice-Chancellor as well as of the petitioner as prestigious and most honourable; hence, the allegations and counter-allegations are directed not to be treated as part of the writ petition, as it will certainly affect the prestigious office of the University. With these remarks, if so advised, the post advertised in future, the two referees as objected to by the petitioner be not included in the referees for examining the research work of the petitioner at least if he applies for the said post.
' In view of the above, there is no force in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.