' MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.---Muhammad Iqbal Khan petitioner, by filing the writ petition in hand, has impugned the order dated 15-3-1992 of respondent No, 3 (Registrar/Deputy Registrar, Gomal University, D.I. Khan), whereby through Order No, S,O.(U.E.) 3-8/90 dated 24-2-1992, revealing that the Governor, N.-W.F.P./Chancellor, on a summary submitted to him on account of appeal against Syndicate's decision taken in its 24th meeting held on 16-12-1989, in exercise of his power under section 10(3) of the Gomal University Act, 1974, set aside the decision of the Syndicate, and declared the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Professor in BPS-18, as ultra vires. The services of the petitioner were placed back on contract basis as Lecturer in BPS-17 with effect from 18-11-1989.
2. Succinctly stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner being a Law Graduate joined District Bar, Bannu as a practising lawyer in the year, 1981. In 1983 'he visited U.K for higher studies and obtained LL.M. Degree in 1984 and again joined his profession at the Bar and worked as such till 1988. On 2-2-1988 the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer on contract basis in BPS-17 in Law College, Gomal University, D.I. Khan. The Gomal University D.I. Khan advertised different posts including a post of Assistant Professor of Law in BPS-18, in August, 1989, inviting therein applications for the same. Having the requisite qualifications, the petitioner applied for the said post, who was called for Interview by the Selection Board of Gomal University, D.I. Khan and was recommended for appointment as Assistant Professor of Law. The recommendations of the Selection Board were placed before the Syndicate in its 24th meeting held on 16-12-1989, which besides granting approval to the recommendations of the Selection Board in respect of the appointment of the petitioner, decided and approved the following:-- "Item No,
20. Counting of practising lawyer's experience towards Teaching/Administrative posts.
71. The question of counting of practising lawyer's experience towards teaching posts in the Law College was discussed at length. The Syndicate decided to count the practising lawyer's experience towards the teaching posts in Law College...."
' Thereafter, on his selection the petitioner joined duty and assumed his charge as Assistant Professor in the Law College, Gomal University, D.I. Khan in BPS-18 which effect from 16-11-1989.
Respondent No, 4, Muhammad Jehangir-Lecturer, Law College, Gomal University, D.I. Khan, took an objection in the 25th meeting of the Syndicate held on 18-11-90 regarding the qualifications of the petitioner by alleging that "experience at the Bar" as a practising lawyer could not be considered as "professional experience" in the relevant field, but this objection of respondent No, 4 was not acceded to, as the Syndicate in its 24th meeting had solved this question by deciding to count the practising lawyer's experience towards the teaching posts in Law College.
3. Respondent No, 4 felt himself aggrieved from the decision of Syndicate in its 25th meeting and filed an appeal before respondent No, 1 (Chancellor, Gomal University/Governor N.-W.F.P.), who issued a Show-Cause Notice to the Syndicate through Secretary Education, stating therein that why the decisions of the Syndicate in its 24th meeting, should not be annulled within the meaning of section 10 of the Gomal University Act, 1974. The matter was scrutinized by the Syndicate in its 28th meeting held on 2-10-1991 and found that the petitioner was lawfully appointed having the requisite qualifications. Respondent No, 1 did not satisfy with the explanation of the Syndicate and set aside the decision of the Syndicate with regard to appointment of the petitioner. Consequently the petitioner was placed back on contract basis as Lecturer in BPS-17 as he was. The petitioner felt himself aggrieved, has come up to this Court with the writ petition in hand.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their assistance.
5. As evident from the above narration, the petitioner has questioned the order of the Chancellor, vide which his appointment was declared as ultra vires of the Gomal University Act, 1974 and the Gomal University Teachers, Scales of Pay Statutes, 1986. This order was passed under section 10(3) of the Act ibid, on an appeal filed by Muhammad Jehangir Khan respondent No, 4, who is a Lecturer in the Law College of the said University. The declaration of the appointment of the petitioner as ultra vires of the Staute ibid was not because of the incompetency of the appointing authority i,e, the Syndicate as envisaged by section 22(2)(0 of the Act ibid, by which the Syndicate can appoint a teacher or an officer on the recommendations of the Selection Board in Basic Pay Seale-17 and above, which has been done in the instant case, and also not for lack of certain essential prerequisite qualifications, but because of interpretation of certain words, i,e, professional experience in the National or International Organization, mentioned in the said Statute.
6. As according to section 8(b), the requisite qualifications for appointment of Assistant Professor in addition to the educational qualifications is that the incumbent should have also a professional experience in the relevant field in a National or International Organization. Muhammad Jehangir Khan, respondent No, 4 filed an appeal after about three months i,e, on 14-2-1990 against the decision of the Syndicate dated 10-11-1989, vide which the petitioner was appointed, to the Chancellor and who acting under section 10(3) of the Act ibid asked for the explanation of the Syndicate with regard to the appointment of the petitioner. The Syndicate again in its 28th meeting held on 2-10-1991, reaffirmed the previous stand taken by it i,e, the professional experience of the petitioner in the relevant field of law in the Bar Association and duly licensed by the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council was re-affirmed, which was one of the requisite qualifications possessing by the petitioner and the appointment was held as valid. However, the Chancellor passed the impugned order under section 10(3) of the Act ibid.
7. The petitioner has raised three-fold objections against the impugned order. Firstly, that he was having the requisite qualification and the impugned order is unsustainable; secondly that he had been discriminated as such-like qualifications of the other employee/teachers have been considered as the valid basic requisite qualification and thirdly, that the order though adversely affecting the petitioner, but no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him and he was condemned unheard.
8. Regarding his first objection, it is not a denying fact that the petitioner is having a professional experience in the relevant field of law, but the point which was vehemently agitated on behalf of the respondents that his professional experience was not in a National or International Organization.
' The Gomal University Teachers, Scales of Pay Statutes, 1986 prescribe the qualification for appointment of Teachers and for appointment of Assistant Professors in the words:-- "(8) (a) ......................................................
(8) (b). ASSISTANT PROFESSORS
(i) Educational qualifications as in (a) above and 6 years teaching/research experience in a recognized University or a Post-Graduate Institution as a Lecturer or professional experience in the relevant field in a national or international organization. OR
(ii) Master's degree (foreign) or M. Phil/LL.M. From a Pakistani University plus 4 years teaching/research experience in a recognized University or a Post-Graduate Institution or professional experience in the relevant field in a National or International Organization.
OR
(iii) Ph.D. With 2 years teaching/research experience in a recognized University or a Post-Graduate Institution or professional experience in the relevant field in a National or International Organization."
' These statutes have not defined the words 'National' or qnternational Organization', but, however, in the definition clause 2(ii) states that the expressions used in the Act ibid shall be considered for the purpose of the Statute while assigning a meaning to some term or word and while referring back to the Act that also is deficient in this respect and the word Organization has not been defined even therein. Then in such eventuality reference will be made to the ordinary dictionary meaning of the word Organization. According to Black's Law Dictionary 'Organization' means: "Organization includes a corporation, Government or governmental sub-division or agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership or association, two or more persons having a joint or common interest, or any other legal or commercial entity."
' According to Corpus Juris Secundum, Organization means, "An arrangement of parties, formation."
' The Legal Thesaurus by William C. Burton defines the word Organization as: "Association, Committee, Institute, Society, Union."
' According to Legal Thesaurus by William C. Burton, 'National' also means: "Domestic, federal, public."
9. The petitioner, who was on a roll as an Advocate with the Bar Council, was a member of the Bar Association by joining the Bannu Bar. In the absence of any specific definition given by the Act or the Statutes, the question would be that whether the restricted meanings be given to these words and they be construed strictly or they be construed liberally. The proper recourse would be to adopt the latter option i,e, these words be construed liberally and by doing so both the employer, the University, and the employee, the candidates would be benefited as the employer would be having a wide range of scope of large number of. Candidates and similarly the employee or the candidates who are otherwise the best candidates but could not apply for the reasons as not having been experienced in the national organization would be deprived of availing a chance. But by adopting the other way i,e, the restricted meanings be given to these words, then the employer and the employee would be losers as the former would be having a lesser number of candidates for the selection and the latter who are otherwise qualified but because of non-fulfilments of conditions would not get a chance to test their luck.
10. Thus it is advisable that liberal meanings be given to these words. Thus, arriving at such a conclusion and in the absence of any definite meaning given by the Act and Statutes concerned, then the Bar Association which is a formation, a society, an association and which is also a national one being domestic, would be taken as one contemplated by the Statutes.
11. With regard to the second objection, as stated by the petitioner, one Asghar Ali Shah, who had been appointed as Associate Professor in the Law College, Gomal University, was deficient in his basic requisite qualifications for the appointment of his post i,e, Associate Professor, unless the period of his professional experience in the law field as a practising Advocate in the Courts had not been counted and similar is the position of one Ghulam Zikirya Khan, 8 who is also an Associate Professor in the Law College. So, when the appointment of the petitioner is disturbed only on the ground that his professional experience should not be counted to his qualifications to make him eligible for appointment of Assistant Professor, then why the appointment of the petitioner be disturbed after two years of his appointment as such and on which post he worked as like the other two persons mentioned above. As it is not the case of Muhammad Jehangir Khan, respondent No, 4, who had filed the appeal that he was a candidate for the said post and because of the appointment of the petitioner he was not appointed.
12. In respect of the third objection, here in this case the action of the Chancellor under section 10(3) of the Act ibid is not only to declare the proceedings of the Syndicate illegal, but certain rights accrued to a person, have been taken away from him as his services were terminated who had been duly appointed by the competent authorities and in such an eventuality then opportunity to show cause should have been afforded to him as envisaged under sections 38 and 39 of the Act ibid, as section 38 provides for a show-cause notice in case of removal of an employee i,e, the teacher of the University and section 39 provides a right of appeal to the affected person and also providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. This section 39 also gives a right of appeal to a person to the disadvantage of whom an order has been passed, but here nothing has been shown or alleged that the appellant Muhammad Jhenagir Khan, who is respondent No, 4 here in the writ petition, has been adversely affected by the appointment order of the petitioner and moreover, the appeal has also been filed after more than 30 days. The competency of the appeal is also questionable, as there is no provision for filing of appeal to Chancellor in respect of any proceeding of the Syndicate for purported action to be taken under section 10(3) of the Act ibid. Furthermore, the petitioner is working against the said post as a Lecturer in BPS-17 before his appointment as such and still continuously working on the said post. Even otherwise, at present the petitioner is qualified to be appointed as such, has six years teaching experience in the University.
' For what has been discussed above, this writ petition is accepted, the impugned orders of respondents 3 and 1 dated 15-3-1992 and 24-2-1992 respectively, are set aside. However, the parties are directed to burden their own costs.