1. ' JUSTICE (RETD.) ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH, (CHAIRMAN)---We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties in all the three appeals on 17-8-2001 at Sukkur, as per diary in Appeal No,87 of 1998 but as the private respondents were not heard the matter was fixed for rehearing on 26-10- 2001. The appellant in Appeals Nos.87 and 92 of 1998 stated that they adopt the same arguments advanced by their counsel earlier. In Appeal No,91 of 1998 the appellant requested for time to bring his Advocate at Karachi which request was allowed and he was given time of 10 days to bring his advocate to argue out the matter if so desired but none appeared within 10 days nor any request was made for extension of time. However, Advocate for official respondents made statement that he adopts the same arguments advanced by him earlier, resultantly we decided to dispose of all three appeals with common judgment as facts and law involved in these appeals are common, therefore, the same are disposed of through this common judgment.
2. ' The appellants are employees of Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur Mir's where they are working in different grades, appellant Shah Muhammad Abbasi is working in BPS-18, while appellant Jan Muhammad Bhutto and Mir Muhammad Chouhan are working as Lecturers in BPS-17. They have challenged the promotions of M/s Noor Muhammad Memon (respondent No,4 in Appeal No,87 of 1998) and Barkatullah Qureshi (respondent No,5 in Appeals Nos.91, 92 of 1998) in BPS-19 and BPS-18 respectively.
3. ' The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Selection. Board before whom the cases of the private respondents were placed for promotion was not completed as per section 6 of the First Statute of Shah Abdul Latif University Act, 1986 and that since the very constitution of Selection Board was not in accordance with law, the promotions Of the private respondents are also illegal, void and nullity in the eye of law as such the same are liable to be quashed.
4. ' In rebuttal, learned counsel for the official respondents has argued that out of 5 members of the Selection Board, 3 members were very much present and so for remaining 2 members are concerned they by that time were not appointed and that since no quorum is required for the meeting of Selection Board their recommendations are neither illegal nor invalid. He added that Syndicate of the University is the appointing authority of the members of the Selection Board and that the Syndicate itself approved the recommendations of the Selection Board, therefore, the cases of the promotions of private respondents attained finality and cannot be called in question before this Tribunal.
5. ' We have considered the above legal submissions and have gone through the material placed before us so also the first statute of Shah Abdul Latif University. In order to arrive at a judicious decision it is advantageous to produce section 6 of the Statute, which reads as under:-- SELECTION BOARD
6. (1) The Selection Board shall consist of;
(i) the Vice Chancellor (Chairman),
(ii) the Chairman or a Member Sindh Public Service Commission to be nominated by the Chairman.
(iii) the Dean of the faculty concerned,
(iv) the Chairman of the Teaching Department concerned; and
(v) one Member of the Syndicate and two other men of eminence, to be appointed by the Syndicate, provided that neither of the three are employees of the University.
(2) The Members mentioned in sub-clause (v) of clause (1) shall hold office for two years.
(3) (a) Four Members shall form the quorum for selection of a Professor or an Associate Professor and three members for the selection of other Teachers.
(b) In case of Officers other than teachers the Selection Board shall consist only of Members at sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (v) of clause (1).
(4) No Member who is candidate for the post of which appointment is to be made shall take part in the proceedings of the Board.
(5) In selecting candidates for the posts of Professors and Associate Professors, the Selection Board shall co-opt or consult three experts in the subject and in selecting candidates foi other teaching posts, two experts in the subject concerned, to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor from a standing list of experts for each subject approved by the Syndicate on the recommendations of the Selection Board and revised from time to time."
6. In the instant appeals M/s Noor Muhammad Memon and. Barkatullah Qureshi were promoted as officers i,e, Inspector of Colleges (BPS-19) and Secrecy Officer (BPS-18) respectively, therefore, Selection Board must be in accordance with section 6(3)(b) of the Statute. The Selection Board shall be consisted of 5 Members as under:--
(i) The Vice Chancellor (Chairman)
(ii) The Chairman or a Member of Sindh Public Service Commission to be nominated by the Chairman,
(iii) One Member of the Syndicate, and
(iv) Two other men of eminence, to be appointed by the Syndicate, provided that neither of the three are employees of the University.
7. ' Admittedly, the meeting of Selection Board of the University held pn 2-11-1997 was attended by only three Members i,e,:--
(1) Prof. Dr. Bashir A. Shaikh In Chair
(2) Prof. Dr. Noor Muhammad Memon, Member Sindh Public Service Commission. Member
(3) Maula Bux Soomro, Retd. Divisional Superintendent of Railways. Member ' It is thus clear that 3 out of 5 Members had attended the meeting of the Selection Board held on 2-11-1997, the Selection Board was, therefore, not complete as per section 6(3)(b) of the Statute referred to above.
8. ' The contention of learned counsel for the official respondents that by the time the meeting of Selection Board was convened, the remaining two Members were not appointed and that no quorum is required under the law, has no force. The fact that 2 Members were not appointed by that time does not mean that remaining 3 Members have full authority and power to recommend the promotion(s) of an employee of the University. As stated above, section 6(3)(b) of the Statute clearly provides that Selection Board in cases of Officers other than teachers shall consist of 5 Members, there is thus no question of quorum. The quorum requires for the purpose of selection of a Professor or an Associate Professor as per section 6(3)(a) and not for section 6(3)(b). It is a well- settled principle that if law provides that a particular thing is to be done in a particular manner/way, it is be done either in the same manner/or not at all.. The fact that Syndicate had approved recommendations of the Selection Board does not mean that the illegality made by the Selection Board has been legalised.
9. ' In view of the above discussion, since the very Selection Board was not complete as required by law its recommendations are illegal, ab initio null and void, nullity in the eyes of law and corum non judice. Accordingly we allow these appeals and set aside the two notifications/orders dated 15-12- 1997 in respect of Promotion of M/s Noor Muhammad Memon (respondent No,4 in Appeal Nos.87 of 1998) and Barkatullah Qureshi (respondent No,5 in Appeals Nos.91 of 1998 and 192 of 1998). We also direct the official respondents to convene the meeting of Selection Board afresh as required by law.
10. If for any reason the remaining 2 Members are not yet appointed, the University is directed to appoint the same as early as possible and then to convene the meeting of Selection Board afresh for the purpose of consideration of promotions of the deserved employees/candidates, as per law.
11. ' Announced in open Court Camp at Sukkur.
12. ' Given under our hands and seal of the Tribunal this 13th day of December, 2001. #EndJudgment