1. The petitioner is a Professor in the Department of Microbiology, Karachi University. In the year 1996 he being one of the senior Professors was appointed Chairman of the Department of the Microbiology with effect from 9-10-1996 for a period of three years by the Syndicate of the Karachi University - (respondent No,4 herein).
2. As per facts mentioned in the petition, Professor Dr. Muhammad Rafi Shaikh (respondent No,3) had acted as Chairman of the said Department first for 2 years 1976-1978 and then for a period of 3 years from 13-2-1985 to 12-2-1988. He was again appointed on the said post effective from 1-4-1993 to 26-2-1994 which was the left over period when the Chairperson Ms. Hajra Khatoon had resigned from her post voluntarily. After completing the said left over period of Chairmanship of Professor Hajra Khatoon, the respondent No,3 was again appointed as Chairman for a period of three years effective from 27-2-1994 On 12th August, 1995, the Vice-Chancellor of Karachi University (respondent No,1),- exercising his powers under clause 13 of the University of Karachi Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") removed the respondent No,3 from Chairmanship of the Department and the said decision was subsequently, endorsed by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 13-2-1996. After the removal of respondent No,3 from the Chairmanship one of the senior Professor Khurshid Ali Khan was appointed as acting Chairman of the said Department with effect from 13-8-1995 till his retirement, i,e, 6-8-1996. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Chairman of the Department of Microbiology for a period of three years under a letter, dated 19-10- 1996 with effect from the date of joining and he accordingly joined on the same date. The respondent No,3 continued to agitate against the removal and when the new Vice-Chancellor Professor Pirzada Qasim Raza Siddiqui took the charge of the Administration of the Karachi University, the respondent No,3 through one of his colleagues got the issue of his removal raised during the Syndicate meeting held on 29-9-1996 and was brought on the agenda of the meeting of the Syndicate held on 3-5-1997. The Syndicate after discussion appointed constituted a three members committee to investigate the issue and make recommendations accordingly. But before the recommendations of the meeting could be heard by the Syndicate and any decision could be taken the presence petition was filed on 13-8-1997.
3. The petitioner through this petition has prayed for restraining the respondents Nos.1, 2 and 4 from passing any order for his removal as the Chairman of the Department of Microbiology, University of Karachi, till expel of his appointment period as Chairman i,e, 9-10-1999 and other appropriate order has been solicited.
4. Mr. Abul Khair, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not expel as to how the petitioner was aggrieved except the apprehension of the petitioned that the Syndicate after hearing the report/recommendation of the three member committee may remove the petitioner from the post of the Chairmanship an appoint the respondent No,3 in his place. It was further contended by the counsel that the Committee appointed by the Syndicate was illegal.
5. Mr. Obaidur Rehman, the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1, 2 and 4 contended that the petition is not maintainable as after the amendment vid Sindh Government Gazette, dated 16-1- 1995 the Service of the University has been declared as "service in connection with the Province of Sindh" and according to him the forum for any grievances for employees of the University is the Service Tribunal.
6. We have heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and have seen the relevant provisions of law.
7. University of Karachi Act, 1972 conferred the necessary autonomy to the University to regulate its administration. Sindh Service Tribunal Amendment Act, 1994, brought amendment in sections 2 and 3 of Sindh Tribunals Act, 1973; which is as under:-- "2. Amendment of section 2 of Sindh Act XV of 1973.--- In the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the said Act in section 2, after clause (a) the following new clause shall be inserted-
(aa) 'Corporation' means a Corporation or Institution set up or established by a Provincial enactment'.
3. Insertion of sections 3-E and 3-F of Sindh Act XV of 1973.--- In the said Act after section 3-D, the following new sections shall be inserted-- ' 3.-E Employee of a Corporation to be deemed Civil servants.---Notwithstanding anything contained in any Law, service of Corporation is hereby declared to be the service of the Province and every person holding a post in the Corporation, not being a person who is on deputation to the Corporation shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be a civil servant.
8. 3-F Abatement of pending cases of an employee of the Corporation.--- All Suits, appeals or applications relating to the terms and conditions of service of a person holding a post in a Corporation pending in any Court immediately before the commencement of the Sindh Service Tribunal (Amendment) Act, 1994, shall abate: Provided that a party to such suit, appeal or application may within ninety days of the Amending Act prefer an appeal to the Tribunal established under section 3."
9. Thus, by virtue of the Sindh Government Gazette, dated 16-1-1995 the service of University were declared to be the service in connection with the Province of Sindh bringing all the employees of the University under the jurisdiction of the Services Tribunal being the Civil Servants. Section 40 (Chapter VIII) of the Code provides "appeal" to and review by the syndicate which is as under:-- "40. Appeal to and review by the Syndicate.--- Where an order is passed punishing any Officer (other than the Vice Chancellor), Teacher or other employee of the University or altering or interpreting to his disadvantage the prescribed terms or conditions of his service, he shall, where the order is passed by the Vice-Chancellor or any other Officer or Teacher of the University, have the right to appeal to the Syndicate against the order, and where the order is made by the Syndicate, have the right to apply to that authority for review of the order. The appeal or application for review shall be submitted to the Vice-Chancellor and he shall lay it before the Syndicate with his views."
10. No documents have been placed before us if the respondent No,3 after being aggrieved of the order of his removal as Chairman filed any appeal before the Chancellor or- approached any of the forum provided under law. We may also mention here that under section 19 of the Code of different Authorities have been named and the Syndicate is one of such Authority. Admittedly, Syndicate had appointed a three members Committee to look into the grievances of the respondent. Under section 27 of the Code it is provided that:-- "27. Appointment of Committees by certain Authorities.--- The Senate, the Syndicate, the Academic Council and other Authorities may, from time to time appoint such standing, special or advisory committees, as they may deem fit, and may place on such committees persons who are not members of the Authorities appointing the committees."
11. It has been admitted by the counsel for the respondents that the three members who formed the Committee were the members of the Syndicate itself and as such adverting to the above provisions of the Code in our opinion the said Committee was illegal. We have also no hesitation in holding that at the time which the petition was filed no cause of action had accrued to the petitioner as no orders whatsoever were passed against him but only meeting of the Syndicate was called.
12. In the case of Anjuman Arain, Bhera v. Abdul Rashid and others PLD 1973 Lah. 500, wherein the land in dispute was an Evacuee Trust Property, the Anjuman Arain, Bhera, through one Faiz Muhammad, filed a writ petition praying that the allotment of the said evacuee land in favour of respondent No,1, Abdul Rashid, be declared to be without lawful authority. The petition was dismissed in limine by the High Court with the observation that the Anjuman was not an aggrieved person and, therefore, it had no locus standi whatsoever to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962. The said decision was upheld in the Letters Patent Appeal.
13. In the case of Muhammad Mehmood Ali v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance 1984 CLC 142, the petitioner, who was an Inspector in the Income Tax Department through the writ petition, questioned the action of the respondent in issuing a notice and a show-cause notice to the petitioner and also the act of contemplating disciplinary action. The writ petition was contested by the respondent-Government on its legal and factual aspects and questioned the very jurisdiction of the Court and competency of the writ petition as well. As to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the case of Raja Muhammad Sadiq v. Water and Power Development Authority PLD 1978 Lah. 738, submitted that since the action proposed to be taken by the respondent is mala fide, void and without lawful authority, the petition under Article 199 of the Constitution would be competent. It was observed by the Honourable Court that in the case relied upon 'by the counsel, the writ petition was filed against final order whereas in the case before the Court at the relevant time only a show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner. The Court observed as under:-- "(5) As the case stands, in this case we cannot oblige the petitioner by issuing an appropriate writ in his favour on two-fold ground, firstly admittedly his appeal before the Service Tribunal apparently was neither heard nor decided on merits, it was only on the question of law that his appeal was accepted and he, not having been exonerated by the Service Tribunal from the charge of misconduct, second inquiry on the same charges would neither be a bar nor without lawful authority and the case reported in PLD 1968 Lah. 786 relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is applicable in this case wherein their Lordships relying on PLD 1959 SC 276 have held- Needless to say that the proposed enquiry against the petitioner is wholly in public interest which cannot be throttled by the principles of natural justice which are not attracted for the present case, for the petitioner, we have no doubt will be afforded opportunity to defend himself as on previous occasion'.
(6) The second ground on which the petition merits dismissal is that the writ petition is obviously premature. As we have earlier stated, in this case only a show cause had been served upon the petitioner and a writ petition, therefore, in such a situation would not be competent."
14. In the instant case, as we have already observed hereinabove, only a meeting of the Syndicate was called to consider the report of the three members Committee. Neither any notice was issued to the petitioner nor was any action taken against him. As such, this petition is premature and the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution could not be invoked as the petitioner is not an aggrieved person as envisaged in the said Article.
15. As a result of the above discussion, this petition is accordingly dismissed in limine together with interlocutory applications.