SHARIF. HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J. Through this Constitutional petition the appointment/posting of Dr. Khalid Aftab, (respondent No. 4 herein) as the Principal of the Government College, Lahore has been :hallenged on various grounds, and the order in the nature of writs of certiorari, mandamus and quo warrant is sought.
2. The relevant facts are that the Government College, Lahore [hereinafter referred to as 'the College'), which .Is one of the prestigious educational Institutions of the country, was notified as "Institution" for the purposes of the Punjab Educational and Training Institution Ordinance, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance) by the Governor of the Punjab and the provisions of the Ordinance were made applicable to the College with effect from 8th of August, 1989 vide Notification No. SO. [BOARDS) 2-4/88, dated 8.8.1989, issued by the Government of the Punjab, Education Department. The same day another Notification was issued by the Government of Punjab, Education Department establishing and constituting the Board of Governors for the College in accordance with Sections 3 and 4 of the Ordinance. The Board of Governors (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') so constituted comprised the Chairman, six official members and ten non-official members, subsequently the Board was twice reconstituted vide Notifications dated 20.1.1993 and 17.1.1996, whereunder the Board now comprises seven official members (including the Provincial Education Minister as the Chairman and the Principal as the Member/Secretaiy) and eleven non- official members. {{DATA MISS}} Servants Act,'1974, therefore, the petitioner's grievance, if any, can only be agitated before the Punjab Service Tribunal as the jurisdiction of this Court is ousted by Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.
3. The Board of Governors, Government College, Lahore respondent No. 3 submitted separate written statement through Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar, Advocate. However, this written statement is not supported by the affidavit nor is the same signed by any person of behalf of respondent No. 3, except the learned counsel. It appears that the same was submitted on the instructions of respondent No. 4, as the Principal.Of the College is ex-officio Member as well as the Secretary of the Board of Governors. It is, therefore, obvious that in this written statement, respondent No. 3 has supported the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Principal of-the College.
4. The admitted position is that the College was notified as the 'institution' for the purposes of the' Ordinance and the Board of Governors was also established and constituted on 8.8.1989. In the report submitted by respondent No. 1 through the Secretary, Education Department, the following factual position has been stated:- . '
"Government College Lahore was granted financial and administrative autonomy as envisaged by the Punjab Government Education & Training Institutions Ordinance, 1960 (W.P. Ord. XI of 1960) on 8.8.1989 vide Govt. Notification .Attached as (R.L). On 8.8.1989 the Board of Governors was also constituted vide Notification (R.II) and on 1.3.1990 all persons serving in the Govt. College Lahore were transferred to. Serve under the Board of Governors of the Govt. College, Lahore vide Notification dated 22.2.90 (R.M)."
5. The aforesaid factual position as stated in the report of respondent No. 1 has not been controverted by the other respondents. N-ow, in order to determine the scope of the autonomy and the affect of the aforesaid Notifications, it is necessaiy to examine the relevant provisions of \ the Ordinance and the Notifications. .
6. The Notification dated 8.8.1989 notifying the College as the 'Institution' is reproduced below:- ' , "GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB -' EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (BOARDS SECTION)
NOTIFICATION No.5.O. ( BOARDS) 2-4/88. In exercise of the powers conferred on him under subsection (2) of section 1 read with clause (c) of section 2 of the Punjab Educational and Training Institutions1 Ordinance, 1960 as amended in 1984-, the Governor of the Punjab is pleased to notify the Government College. Lahore as an 'institution' for the'purposes- of. The Ordinance. He is, further pleased to direct that this' provisions of the said Ordinance shall apply to the said College with effect from 8th of August, 19891 .
Dated Lahore, the . - , 8th August. 1989 _ . . .
BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR OF THE PI) I I , TARIQ SULTAN / / | EDUCATION SECRETARY - Simultaneously another Notification was issued by the Government of the Punjab in the Education'
Department, establishing and constituting the Board, which is in the following terms:- : .
' "GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB EDUCATION DEPARTMENT BOARDS SECTION NOTIFICATION NO.S.O. (BOARDS) 2-4/88. In exercise of the*powers conferred on him under Sections 3 (1) and 4 of the Punjab Government Education and Training. Institutions Ordinance, 1960 as amended in 1984 and in furtherance of the Education Department's Notification of even number, dated 8th August., 1989, the Governor of the Punjab is pleased to constitute the following Board of Governors of Government College, Lahore, with immediate effect: '
1. Education; Minister, Punjab Chairman.
2. Chairman, Planning & Development .s Official Department Government of the Ptrnjab or his Member, nominee not below he rank of Additional -- Secretary
3. 4. #tbs
5. Official
6. Member.
7.
8. #the
9. Secretary Education Government of the Punjab, or his nominee not below the rank of Additional Secretary. - '
4. Secretary Finance Government of the Punjab or his nominee not below the .Rank'of Additional - Secretary.'
5. 6. #tbs
7. Non-Official
8. Member.
9. Non-Official
10. Member.
11. Non-Official
12. Member.
13. #the
14. 15. #tbs
16. Non-Official
17. Member.
18. Non-Official Member. ;
19. #the
20. 21. #tbs
22. Non-Official.
23. Member.
24. #the
25. 26. #tbs
27. Official
28. Member.
29. Official
30. Member.-'
31. '* '
32. Official ' ; Member.
33. Non-Official
34. Mefnber.
35. Non-Official
36. Member,
37. Non-Official
38. Member.
39. Non-Official
40. Member.
41. #the
42. Vice-Chancellor University of Engineering.
' Technology, Lahore".
43. Vice-GhanCellor , University ' of the Punjab, Lahore, ' \
44. Mr. Justice Dr.-Javaid Iqbal Judge, Supreme i..
Court of Pakistan.i. ^
45. Mr: Majid Nizami Chief Editor, the Nawa-i-.
Waqt'and the Nation, Lahore.
46. Mr. Shahbaz Sharif. MPA and Prominent Industrialist,
47. Dr, ' Muhammad Ajmal Ex-Principal, ' ' 1 Government College. Lahore, Rx-Vice- Chancellorv Punjab, University and ex-Federal Education Secretary.
48. Dr.Muhammad Afzal -Rector, International Islamic. University, Islamabad, ex-Federal Education Minister. e.x-Chairman. University Grants'
Commission. '
49. Begum Aftfa Manjdot 110-G. Model Town. Lahore.
50. Prof. Mirza Muhammad Munawar Former Director, Iqbal Academy, Lahore presently Chairman, Women University/Commission, Punjab, Lahore.
51. Mr. A.R. Toosy, Chief Engineer Buildings Department, Lahore.
52. Dr. Shaheryar Sheikh, Associate Prof. Cardiology, K.E.M.C., Lahore. ?
53. Dr. Ashfaq Ahmad, a distinguished Scientist and Member, Pak Atomic Energy Commission.
Islamabad.
K.L.B. L&S. C.
10. Principal, Government College, Lahore. .Official Member Secretary.
' BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR OF THE PUNJ.
Dated Lahore, the TARIQ SULTAN EDUCATION SECRETARY / 8th August, 1989.
7. The preamble to the Ordinance declares the purposes of such action and .States that....... " it is expedient to establish Board of Governors for some Government educational and training institutions in West Pakistan for the efficient management and control thereof. ' For achieving this purpose the afore-stated Notifications were issued by the Government of Punjab. The consequence of notifying the College as an 'Institution' under section 1(2) of the Ordinance is that with effect from 8.8.1989 the College ceased to be under the control and management of the Government of Punjab and became autonomous. For efficient management and control of the College, the Board of Governors was established, which is a body corporate having perpetual succession and common seal, with power to enter into contract and to acquire arid hold property in accordance with Section 3 of the Ordinance. The Board had accordingly been constituted under section 4 of the Ordinance Under Section 10 of the Ordinance, all properties hitherto vesting in the Government in connection with the affairs of the college, now vest in the college.
11. Thus it appears that after the Notification dated 8.8.1989, the Government/Governor retained some powers only under the the Ordinance as summarised hereunden: provisions of
(i) to constitute/re-constitute Board of Governors. (Section 4)
(ii) to remove the Members of the Board of Governors (Section 5)
(iii) to approve the budget and (iv) the Regulations; (Section 8)
(V) to make transitional provisions regarding staff; (Section 9)
(vii) to approve estimated receipt and expenditure in respect of next firiaricial year: (Section 13)
(viii) to approve annual report on the conduct of the affairs ; (Section 14) of the Board for the year (ix) to issue directive to the Board for rectification of an audit objection; (section 15)
(X) to make rules for carrying out the purpose of the Ordinance; (section 17)
(xi) to approve regulations framed by the Board; (section 18) l2. With regard to the person who were already serving in the College, Section 9 of the Ordinance and the Notification No. S.O. tBOARDS) 2-4/88 dated 22.2.1990 has taken their proper care. Section 9 reads as follows: - "Any person serving, in connection with the affairs of the Province, in an institution in any capacity immediately before the day notified under subjection (2) of section 1, hereinafter referred toas the "said day", may be transferred by Government for service under the Board on such terms and conditions as Government may determine; provided that such terms and conditions shall not be less favourable than those admissible to him under Government; provided further that no such person shall be dismissed, removed from service or reduced in rank by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed."
Similarly the relevant provisions of the Notification dated 22.2.1990 may be advantageously reproduced hereunder;- "LAH persons weaving, in whatever capacity, in the Government college, Lahore,,., shall with effect from lst March, 1990 stand transferred to serve under the Board of Governors of the Government College. Lahore........... On the following terms and conditions:-
(i) The employees transferred to the Board shall he initially adjusted against the same posts as they were holding in the College immediately before the transfer and their status shall not he reduced.
(ii) Any person so transferred shall be entitled to receive the pay and allowance which shall not lie less than what he was drawing before the lst March, 1990. There shall be no extra emoluments in the nature of deputation pay or allowance etc. K.L.tL I,AS. C.
(iii) The employees so transferred shaU enjoy all the privileges of Government service and shall be governed by the Service Rules of the Education department of the Punjab in all matters.
(iv'i (v).
2........................ 3(i) The Board shall exercise all administrative, disciplinary and financial powers in respect of any such person; provided that no such person shall be dismissed, removed from service, retired eopulsorilty, or reduced in rand or suspended by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed; provided further that disciplinary action involving any of the aforesaid punishments in respect of any such person may be initiated by the Board. ............... (iii) The Board shall be competent to make such organizational changes as it may deem fit and employ any such person in any capacity as it deems proper provided that as a result of such changes such person does not suffer in emoluments or status.
4. Till his permanent absorption in the Board's service under certain specific terms and conditions, any employee, teaching staff or others, may be taken out or transferred back to the Government and posted elsewhere on his own request or on Board's proposal or at the pleasure of the Government "
13. On the strength of paragraph 1 (i), (iii) and paragraph 4 of the Notification dated 22.2.1990, Syed Jamshad Ali Shah, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 made two fold submissions.
Firstly, that the petitioner and respondent No. 4 are the Government servants, therefore, the appointment/posting of respondent No. 4 as the Principal of the College could not be impugned in the writ petition view of the Constitutional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Secondly that the Government of Punjab still retains the powers^ transfer, post and appoint any person in the College, theijefore, the appointment/posting of respondent No. 4 as Principal of the College by the K.I,.It. L&8, C.
Government of the Punjab through Notification dated 17.1.1993, was validly and competently made.
14. Syed Jamshed Ali Shah, Advocate, learned counsel fir respondent No. 4 also argued that notwithstanding the fact the college was notified as an ' institution' under the Ordinance, the Provincial Government retained the powers of making transfers, posting and appointments in the College and in other administrative matters, such as approving the budget, the Rules and Regulations and appointing and removing the members of the Board of Governors. In this behalf he referred to Sections 8,9,13,14,17, and 18 of the Ordinance. According to him, all these provisions under the Ordinance and the said Notification of 22.2.1990 indicate that the Government was competent to transfer respondent No. 4 from the post of the Head of the Economics Department of the College and to post him as the Principal of the College against an existing vacancy which was done through the impugned Notification No. SD (E-48/91 dated 17.1.1993. The learned counsel also referred to Article 129 of the Constitution to contend that the Punjab Provincial Government in exercise of its executive authority could make such appointment and posting in the College.
15. In my view the first connection is misconceived, inasmuch as the appointments of respondent No. 4 as the Principal of the College by the Government is not a matter relating to his terms and conditions of service as a civil servant so as to attract the bar against the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 212 of the Constitution. What is challenged in this Constitutional petition is the power of the Government to make such an appointment in the 'Institution' i.e. The College, which is no more subject to the authority and control of the Government, and the authority of respondent No. 4 to hold the same office. Therefore, this petition is not barred under Article 22 of the Constitution nor is appeal competent under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the impugned Notification, as it does not relate to terms and conditions of respondent No. 4 as a civil servant.
16. After notifying the College as an 'Institution' under the Ordinance and constituting Board of Governors, the Board, to the exclusion of the Government, assumed the full powers the administer, manage and control the College in accordance with sections 3 and 8 of the Ordinance. Under section 3 of the Ordinance, the Board has been established for the efficient management and control of the 'Institution' and under section 8 of the Ordinance inter alia, with the following powers:-
(a) to acquire and dispose of property and generally to enter into contracts, in conformity with the purses of this Ordinance;
(b) recruitment and determination of the terms and conditions of service of the Principal and other members of the staff of the institution and of other officers and servants of the Board;
(c) to formulate the budget of the institution for approval of Government;
(d) to set up an Executive Committee and other standing Committees as may be required for carrying out the purposes of this Ordinance;
(e) to delegate powers to the Chairman, the Executive Committee, Standing Committee, the Principal, the Staff of the Institution and other officers and servants of the Boiard; and
(f) to frame, subject to the approval of Government, regulations for the conduct of business of the Board."
17. In support of the second contention, the learned counsel for the respondents, in addition to the aforesaid Notification dated 22.2.1990, also relied on the wording of Section 9 of the Ordinance which is reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment. '
18. As observed above, the Government of Punjab has also issued Notification No. SD (BOARDS) 2- 4/88 dated <81.3.1992 (Annexure R/IV to the written statement of respondent No. 1) approving and enforcing with immediate effect the Government College, Lahore (General Conditions of Service )
Regulations, 1990, framed by the Board which begin in the following terms:- "In exercise of the powers conferred on it under section 18 pf the Punjab Government Educational and Training Institutions Ordinance, 1960 as amended in 1984, the Board of Governors of , the, Government college, Lahore has, with the approval of Government of the Punjab, framed the following Regulations in respect of recruitment and service conditions for the persons appointed to various categories at the College."
19. These Regulations have been framed by the Board under Sections 8 and 18 of the Ordinance with the approval of the Government prescribing manner of recruitment and terms and conditions of service of the Principal and other officers and employees of the College.
20. According to Section 2(f) of the Ordinance "prescribed" means prescribed by rules or regulations made under this Ordinance. Regulation No. 2 defines the "Appointing Authority" to mean the southerly shown in column 5 of the Schedule; the "Principal" to mean 'Principal of Government College, Lahore' and the 'employee' to mean a person employed in any manner to a post and paid out of the Board's fund. Section 2(g) of the Ordinance also defines the 'Principal' to mean the Principal Officer-in-charge of an Institution. Regulation No. 3 states that, except as otherwise provided, these Regulations shall apply to all employees of the Board. Regulation No. 4 prescribes qualifications etc. For various posts. Clause (1) of Regulation No. 4 which prescribes the qualifications of the Principal reads as follows:- "The Principal will be the Chief Academic & Executive Officer of the College. The minimum qualifications, age, method of recruitment and the appointing Authority in respect of the Principal will be as given in the Schedule. The Principal shall be appointed for a term of 4 years, but shall be eligible for another , term or a part thereof, provided that the Board may, at any time, review the work of the Principal and if, on such review, it is satisfied that in the interest of the College or for any other sufficient cause, it is necessary to do so, it may, after giving the Principal an opportunity to show cause against the proposed action ask the Principal to leave or remove or dismiss him from service."
The Schedule to the Regulations so far as it relates to the Principal, is as follows:- Qualifications/ Age of Energy Method of Appointing Experience for Recruitment Authority Director Recruitment A person of eminence with wide ranging experience in the find of Education and Administration.
By selection Board of through Governors, advertisement
21. It is thus clear that under the Notification dated 22.2.1990 read with Section 9 of the Ordinance, the petitioner and respondent No. 4 alongwith the entire teaching staff and other employees of the College, stood transferred to serve under the Board with effect from 1.3.1990 and stood adjusted against the same posts which they were holding in the College immediately before their transfer and all of them became subject to 'administrative, disciplinary and financial power of the Board in terms of para 3(i> of the Notification dutecl 22,2.1990, reproduced above, thereafter, the only power retained by tke Provincial Government in this regard was to transfer any person to serve under the board or transfer any person serving in the College back to the Government, as provided in para 4 of the Notification dated 22.2.1990 and section 9 of the Ordinance.
22. As observed above, the Regulations were validly made by the Board of Governors with the approval of the Government of Punjab as required under Sections 8 and 18 of the Ordinance. Under the Regulations, the Board is the only competent Statutory Body comments, transfers, posting in the College and to prescribe terms and conditions of sendee of the persons/employees serving in the College under the Board, if not prescribed in the Schedule or the Regulations. After 8.8.1989, but in any case after 1.3.1990, the effective date of the Notification dated 22.2.1990, the Government lost all administrating, disciplinary and financial control over all those persons who stood transferred to the College, so long as they remain in the College to serve under the Board, as in the words of para 3 (i) of the Notification dated 22.2.1990 "The Board shall exercise all administrative, disciplinary and financial powers in respect of any such person............. The only power retained by the government uptill permanent absorption of the persons so transferred to the College was that such persons can be taken out of the College and transferred back to and posted elsewhere by the Government.
23. Under Regulation No. 4 and the Schedule thereto, the Board has the exclusive power to appoint the Principal in the manner provided in the Schedule. Regulation No. 4 , inter alia, provides that,..................... The minimum qualifications, age, method of recruitment and the appointing authority in respect of the Principal will be as given in the Schedule " Under the Schedule the Board of Governors is the appointing authority and has to make selection of the Principal, who. In the words of the schedule, shall be "A person of eminence with wide ranging experience in the find of Education and administration".
Through advertisement in an Open competition amongst the qualified persons on the basis of merit alone.
24 In the present case the appointment/posting of respondent No. 4 as the Principal of the College was made by the Government of the Punjab vide Notification dated 17.1.1993 without disclosing the authority under which this Notification was issued and the appointment was made. According to the learned counsel for respondent No. 4. The Government derived the K.LR. I.&S. C authority under various provisions of the Ordinance, the Notification dated 22.2,1990 as discussed above and article 129 of the Constitution. It is established the prior to the issuance of the Notification dated 17.1.1993, the two Notifications under the Ordinance had been issued by the Government on 8.8.1989, notifying the College as an 'Institution' and establishing and constituting the Boardto administer, manage and control the affairs of the College. These were followed by the Notifications dated 22.2.1990, transferring existing employees to serve under the Board and Notification dated 31.3.1992 promulgating the Regulations which, inter alia, provided necessaiy procedure and terms and conditions relating to the recruitment and service of the persons in the College. The necessary consequence of these earlier for Notifications was that the Government was no more the Controlling Authority and possessed or retained no powers, except those enumerated in the earlier part of this judgement, in connection with the affairs of the College, including the appointments, postings and transfers of the staff and other employees. The Regulations providing method of recruitment and terms and conditions of service were promulgated which applied to all the employees of the Board. Henceforth, Board alone was competent to make frfesh appointments, postings and transfers in the college of all the employees, including the principal, in accordance with the Notification dated 22.2.1990 and the Regulations.
25. As observed, in terms of the Notification dated 22.2.1990 all the existing employees stood initially adjusted against the same posts which they were holding prior to 1.3.1990 and thereafter the Board could pass orders of their further postings and transfers. At that time respondent No. 4 was holding the post of the Head of the'Economics Department in the Gollege and accordingly stood adjusted agaiqst the same post under the interim 'or transitional arrangements. The existing employees-, including the teaching staff stood transferred to serve under* the Board which exercised all.
Administrative, disciplinary and financial powers over them. - .
26. Syed Jamshad Ali Shah, Advocate also submitted that the petitioner has sought relief in the nature of writ of quo-warrante which cannot be claimed as of right but the same is within the discretion Of the Court and that discretion in the present case cannot be exercised in favour of the petitioner for two reasons; firstly, that the writ petition is mala fide inasmuch as the petitioner is nursing personal grudge against respondent No. 4 on account of latter's such appointment and secondly the petition, having ben find after the delay of more than 2 yeara, suffers from laches.
27. So far as the male fides of the petitioner ai*e concerned, suffice it to say that notwithstanding any malice on the part of the petitioner, if on the basis of the correct information laid before the Court by the petitioner, the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Principal of the College is found invalid and made by an incompetent authority, this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution can invalidate such an order or appointment as it would, not allow the illegality to perpetuate and unsurper of a public office to continue, In this regard reference may respectfully be made to the judgments of the Hon'be Supreme Court of Pakistan in "Ramai Hussain v. Muhammad Sirqj- ul-Islam and others (PLD 1969 S.C. 42) and of the Hon'be Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in "Azad Government v.
Israr Hussain Mughal" (1996 SCR 278-Azad Jammu & Kashmir Supreme Court Recorder).
28. With regards to the question of laches it is the admitted position that the petitioner made representations to the Government but no action was taken on the same. In the Report of Respondent No. 1 It is stated that "Furthermore the petitioner has made representations in respect of his perceived grievance to the Government of Puiyab...." Besides, in the present case it is continuing wrong, therefore, the laches on the part of the petitioner would also not per se be sufficient reason, particularly when no relief is granted to benefit the petitioner personally, to dismiss this petition.
Reference may be made to the case of"Arshad Hussain v. Government of Sindh" (PLD 1982 Karachi'604) wherein it was held that:- "The present petition is under Article 199 of the Constitution and contains a prayer in the nature of quo warrant. In proceedings in the nature of quo warranto delay by itself has never been considered sufficient for the purpose of defeating a petition, (see Athar Rehman v. Muhammad Latif Talmiz etc. (1). If a person holds a public office without the authority of law that is a continuous wrong and such a wrong whenever ingestion has got to be set right. Even otherwise, the question of laches has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case. In some case a delay of three-months may be fatal and in another a delay of years may have to be condoned. On the facts of the present case and various material dates mentioned herein above, we do not find the petition suffering from any laches. The first part of the preliminary objection is, therefore, overruled."
In this view of the matter this objection has also no substance.
29. Mr. M. Nasim Kashmiri, learned Additional Advocate General, Puryab appeared on behalf of the Government of Punjab. He admits that after -the College was declared as "institution" and made atonomous by the said Notification issued under the Ordinance, the respondent Government was not possessed with any authority to make appointment against the post of the Principal in the College and that under the said Regulations, the Board alone was competent to make appointments/postings of the persons serving in the College including the principal. He submitted that the Board of Governors was constituted by the Provincial Government through the said Notifications in accordance with the Ordinance, therefore, the Provincial Government could exorcise only those powers which were retained by it under the Ordinance or the Regulations. But neither the Ordinance nor the Regulations empowered the Government to. Make appointments or posting in the College against the posts which are mentioned in the Schedule to the Regulations.
30 The Government appeared to be veiy clear on the effect of the said Notification dated 8.8,1989 that is why the necessary amendment was made in the Puujab Government Rules of Business. 197- 1 by insetting in the column under the heading "Autonomous Bodies" at Serial No. 8 of Schedule I the 'Government College, Lahore as autonomous, vide Notification No. CAB- 1/2-4/82 dated the November, 1994
31. Lastly the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 4 in the capacity of the Principal of the College which is one of the prestigious institutions of the countiy and imparts education to thousands of students, holds public office and, therefore, writ $f quo warranto can be issued and if his appointment is found invalid, the post of the Principal can also be declared vacant.
32. In M. U. A.Khan v. Rana M. Sultan and another" (PLD 1974 Supreme Court 228), the Hon'be Supreme Court made the following observation while holding the office of the Chief Inspector of Mines as public office:- "There can be little doubt that the appointment held by the respondent is in the nature of a public office. As pointed out by this Court in Masudul Hassan v. Khadim Hussain 0), a public office is an office created by the State, by charter or by statute, when the duties attached to the office are of a public nature. In the instant case, the office of the Chief Inspector of mines is a statutoiy office created by the State under section 4 of the Mines Act. The duties and functions of this office are also of a public nature, dealing with the regulation of the working of mines in the Province. It is, therefore, clear that the petition instituted by the appellant was maintainable under sub-clause
(b) (ii) of clause (2) of Article 98 of the 1962 Constitution read with the Provisional Constitution Order, 1969."
33. Similarly in "Masudul Hussain versus Khadim Hussain and other" (PLD 1963 Supreme Court 203), the Member, Town Committee was held to hold public office. Thus there is no doubt that the duties and functions which are being discharged by the Principal of the Government College, Lahore as 'the principal-in-charge' and as ' the Chief Academic and Executive Officer' of the College and imparting education to thousand of the students are of public nature and importance. Besides, the method of appointment, the terms and conditions of service of the Principal are regulated by the statutory provisions of the Ordinance and the Regulations. Accordingly, the respondent No. 4 is holding a public office as the Principal of the College and the petition under Article 199 of the Constitution seeking relief in the nature of a writ of quo warranto against him is competent, as also held by the Hon'be Supreme Court in Masdul Hassan (Supra), the relevant observations whereof are as follows:- "But, that was not the only relief which Masudul Hasan could claim. He could have moved for an order in the nature of a writ of quo warranto with equal efficacy. Referring again to the monograph on Grown Proceedings in Volume 11 of Halsbury's La\\s of England, the now obsolete writ of quo warranto was in its nature an information lying against a parson who "claimed or usurped an office, franchise or liberty" and was intended " to enquire by what authority he supported his claim in order that the right to the office may be determined," It was necessary Tor the issue of the writ that the office should be one created by the State, by charter or by statute, and that the duty should be of a public nature. It was necessary also that the respondent should be in possession of the office. Here, the office was that of member of a Town Committee, created by statute, namely, the Basic Democracies Order 1959, and its duties were of a public nature. Khadim Hussain was in possession of the office, A private relator (i.e. a petitioner) is competent to apply for an information against, a member of corporation on a ground affecting his individual title, to show by what authority he claimed to exercise his individual functions. All that is necessaiy in a case of a private petitioner was that he should have some interest in the election which he impeaches."
34. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the College after having becomeautonomous on 8.8.1989, as also admitted by the Government in its Report, and the Board having assumed the administrative, disciplinary and financial control of the College, in terms of Sections 3 and 8 of the Ordinance and the Notification dated 22.2.1990, the Government of the Punjab was left with no.Power and authority under the law to make fresh appointments and posting and transfers within the College. Accordingly, the Notification dated 17.1.1993 issued by the Government of the Punjab transferring respondent No. 4 from the office of the Head of the Economics Department of the College and posting him as the Principal of the College against the existing vacancy, is held to be invalid without lawful Authority.
35. Relying on the dictum of the Hon'be Supreme Court of Pakistan in Masudul Hassan (supra) and the judgment of the Hon'be Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir in "Azad Government v. Israr Hussain Mughal" (supra) it. Is consequently declared that the respondent No. 4 has no Authority to hold the office of the Principal of the Government College, Lahore which office shall be deemed to be vacant and the respondent No. 4 shall not be entitled to act as such Principal, unless appointed by the Board in accordance with law as discussed herein.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, However, there shall be no order as to costs.