' The petitioner, is serving as Associate Professor and is Chairperson in the Department of Political Science, Islamia University, Bahawalpur (hereinafter to be referred as the University). The applications for post of Professor, Political Science, were invited by the University. The petitioner as well as respondent No,6 and one Salah-ud-Din applied for the said post. The University appointed respondent No,6 This appointment has been challenged by the petitioner throng's this Constitutional petition. It is prayed that the acts and orders of Selection Board and Syndicate, endorsing and appointing respondent No,6 as Professor may be declared without lawful authority and untenable in the eye of law. The petition came up for hearing on 21-9-1994 when respondent No, 2 was directed to file a report and parawise comments. The order was complied. Thereafter, the petition was admitted to regular hearing and notices were issued to the respondents, who have appeared and contested the petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support. Of the petition argued that respondent No,6 was not eligible and according to the rules and past practice, his eligibility has to be determined by the Selection Board. In this behalf, the learned counsel has referred to the comments filed by the University in Writ Petition No,2189-S/94 and also Annexures ' A' and 'B'. It is added that it is clear from the aforementioned two Annexures that neither respondent No,6 nor the third candidate Salah-ud- Din were eligible and were not to be called for interview. In the next place, it is argued that age could only be relaxed of a candidate, who is serving in the University. The provisions of para. 11 read with definition of 'teacher' as contained in para. 2 of the Islamia University Bahawalpur Teachers (Appointments and Special Conditions of Service) Statutes, 1977, copy whereof enclosed as Annexure 'R-3' to the comments submitted by respondent No,2, make it clear that the case of respondent No,6 could not be considered for the relaxation of age because he was not serving in the respondents-University but was on the pay roll of Punjab University. The arguments. Are summed up with the submission that the relaxation was to be granted with the consultation of Selection Board as per Explanation 1 to para. 11 ibid. No body knew about the relaxation, which was simply incorporated in the appointment letter. It is added that way and manner followed in the appointment was absolutely illegal and against past practice because only the eligible candidates were called for interview. It is, therefore, argued that since the petitioner was the only eligible candidate; hence, she should have been appointed by the respondents-University. The learned counsel in this behalf has referred to Government of West Pakistan and another v. Begum Agha Abdul Karim Shorish Kashmiri (PLD 1969 SC 14).
3. On the other hand, Mr. M. Mahmood Bhatti, the learned' counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 3, argued that Annexures ' A' and 'B' are the reports prepared by the clerk of the office of Registrar of the University. The same were put up before the Selection Board in its meeting held on 10th to 12th of June, 1994, and the Selection Board recommended for relaxation of age of respondent No,6.
Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Syndicate in its meeting held on 17th of September, 1994. The recommendations of Selection Board were approved and relaxation was granted. It was subsequent thereto that the order was issued. It is explained that besides the reports/working paper prepared by the staff, the biodata of all the three candidates, who had applied for the post was sent to three experts and two of them very clearly and in unequivocal terms recommended respondent No,6. It is further explained that all the posts are filled by recruitment and not by promotion. Therefore, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that .Para. 11 referred to above is only applicable to the in-service candidates renders the provision nullity. The next submission is that the Court is to give effect to the departmental practice followed for the matters and the same should not lightly be interfered. In this behalf, the learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme,, Court in the case of Messrs Radaka Corporation and others v.
Collector of Customs and another (1989 SCMR 353). The arguments are summed up with the submission that there is no violation of any statutory rules, therefore, the writ petition is incompetent. In this behalf, the learned counsel has placed reliance on University of the Pubjab, Lahore and others v. Ch. Sardar All (1992 SCMR 1093), Rahmat Khan v. University of Agriculture (1987 SCMR 1150) and Masood Pervaiz v. The Disciplinary Committee, University of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 other (1982 SCMR 1084).
4. The learned counsel for other respondents adopted the arguments of learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 3, while the learned counsel for the petitioner summing up the arguments submitted that since para. 11 creates an exception, the same is to be construed strictly. It is added that rule of constructions is that the Statute should be read as one whole organic body. The arguments are concluded with the submission that the case of Sardar Ali (1992 SCMR 1093) cited by the learned counsel for the respondents to urge that the writ petition is incompetent is not applicable to the facts of the present case. On the other hand, it was clearly held by this Court in the judgment reported as Prof. Dr. Muhammad Belal Sukhera v. Islamia University, Bahawalpur through Vice-Chancellor and 6 others (PLD 1993 Lahore 474) that the writ was competent, it was accepted.
5. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the record as well as the relevant provisions of the University rules, regulations and the precedents. The whole case revolves around the interpretation of para 11. The same reads as under:-- "RELAXATION:
11. Any of these statutes, for reasons to be recorded in writing, may be relaxed in special cases, if the Syndicate is satisfied that a strict application of such Statutes would cause under hardship to an individual teacher or adversely affect the interests of the University: ' Provided that whenever such relaxation involves a question on which consultation with Selection Board is necessary, the Board shall be consulted before the relaxation is made."
' The other relevant provisions of this Statute are section/para. 2 definitions of Teacher and University, reading as under:-- " Teacher: means Professors, Associate Professors and Lecturers or any other person imparting instruction in a Faculty of Teaching Department of the University and recognized as a teacher by the Syndicate."
"University: ' means the Islamia University, Bahawalpur."
' It is clear from the bare reading of para. 11 that it deals with relaxation of all sorts, i,e,, age, qualification, length of experience etc. Relaxation is to be granted for reasons to be recorded in writing in special cases, if the Syndicate is satisfied that--
(I) strict application of Statute would cause undue hardship to an individual teacher; or
(II) it would adversely affect the interests of the University.
This power of the Syndicate is subject to the proviso to the effect that if relaxation involves a question on which consultation of the Selection Board is necessary then the Board shall be consulted before the relaxation is made. While the matters in respect of which consultation of the Selection Board is essential have been tabulated in the Explanation I, which are the relaxation in respect of age, qualification and experience etc. Now, the question which arises for determination is whether respondent No,6 has been allowed relaxation in age as teacher or in the interest of the University. The perusal the minutes of the meeting of the Selection Board show that the relaxation was recommended in the interest of the University. The relevant portion reads as follows:- {{URDU TEXT}} 1/ This recommendation was accepted by the Syndicate, therefore, the action of the respondents- University is fully covered by the latter part of para.11. The argument that it only applies to the teachers already on the pav roll of the University is absolutely misconceived as it loses sight of last part of the para. which has been underlined by me to make it prominent. The learned counsel when confronted with this position argued that the relaxation was in the interest of respondent No,6 and not of the University because of University it was immaterial, who is appointed. The argument is without any substance, as the interest of the University is that it must have the best available teachers on its pav roll. The University was justified to zealously guard this interest. The anxiety of the University to have the best staff is fully justified. This is not all. It was clearly provided in the advertisement inviting applications that upper age 'limit may be relaxed in exceptional cases.
6. The other ground of attack to the impugned order is that the Syndicate could not relax the upper age of respondent No,6 without consultation of the Selection Board. The argument was addressed in ignorance of the facts on record. In this case, as already noted, the Selection Board recommended relaxation, therefore, the order of the Syndicate is legal and valid. It is relevant to mention here that the Selection Board was broad based and it included representatives, the Member, Punjab Public Service. Commission, and the Vice-Chancellor of Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.
7. The petitioner has failed to make out a case of violation of any statutory rules, therefore, she cannot maintain the Constitutional petition.
' The upshot of the above discussions is that this has no merit and is dismissed.