1. ' BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.---This petition for leave to appeal has been filed to challenge the admission order.
2. ' The petitioner, who is a retired Colonel, was appointed as Associate Professor (B-19) and was also assigned to work as Dean of the Ali Ahmad Shah University College of Engineering and Technology, Mirpur on 5th of November, 1996. The respondent, who is Assistant Professor in the department of Electrical Engineering in the same College, filed a writ petition on 12th of November, 1997 to challenge the appointment of the petitioner. The writ petition has been admitted to regular hearing. This has been done in view of the following legal objections raised by the respondent:---
(i) The petitioner is not eligible for appointment because he is not a State-Subject which is an essential requirement under section 5 of the University Act;
(ii) No applications were invited before appointing the petitioner which is a necessary condition;
(iii) The petitioner has not been recommended by Selection Board nor was he approved by the Syndicate; and
(iv) The petitioner does not fulfill the qualifications prescribed for the post of Associate Professor.
3. ' It is submitted by Mr. Riaz Alam in support of the petition that the respondent, being himself a mother of the Faculty, knew about the appointment of the petitioner but filed the petition after an inordinate delay of more than one year. It is submitted that the writ petition was, therefore, hit by laches. The argument has no force because it is well-settled that doctrine of laches is not applicable to a writ of quo warranto.
4. ' Confronted with this proposition, Mr. Riaz Alam submitted that the writ petition filed by the respondent was not a writ of quo warranto. I have gone through the writ petition. The term quo warranto or relevant phraseology relating to writ of quo warranto has not been used in the writ petition but the petition is essentially one of quo warranto because the only specific prayer made in the writ petition is that the order of the petitioner's appointment may be set aside. The petitioner has not claimed any benefit for himself.
5. ' It was then contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an adequate remedy by way of appeal to the Syndicate provided by section 38 of the University Act was available to the respondent but he did not avail it. This point also does not have any weight because the writ petition has not been filed by the respondent to seek any service benefit for himself.
6. ' That being so, the petition is dismissed.
7. Petition for leave to .