' JUSTICE (RTD.) ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH, CHAIRMAN.---Appellant Syed Zaheeruddin Kazmi through the instant appeal filed under section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973, has prayed that the impugned adverse remarks pertaining to the year, 1996 may be expunged and the order/letter, dated 18-12-1997 whereby the same were communicated to him be set-aside.
2. The relevant facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that appellant while serving as Associate Professor, Government Superior Science College, Shah Faisal Colony, Karachi was conveyed adverse remarks from his A.C.R. For the year, 1996 as detailed in the original impugned order, dated 18-12-1997 of Directorate of College Education, Karachi, Region, Karachi. Feeling aggrieved, he filed departmental appeal to the Secretary, Government of Sindh, Education Department, Karachi which despite lapse of mandatory period of 90 days was not decided. He has now filed this appeal before us for the expunction of the said remarks.
3. The appellant has submitted that during his entire service of about 27 years he never earned or communicated any adverse remarks and that he has been made victim of personal grudge of the Principal i,e, the Reporting Officer and that the relations between him and Reporting Officer were/are strained as such the adverse remarks in the A.C.R. Are biased and result of hostility which the appellant and the Reporting Officer had been nurshing. He further contended that he and the Reporting Officer are of equal grade as such the Reporting Officer under the law was not competent to initiate the A.C.R. And that the said Reporting Officer as well as the countersigning officer violated the mandatory rules/instructions/guidelines about the Confidential reports. He went on to argue that the same Reporting Officer during the last year of 1995 also recorded adverse remarks in A.C.R. Of the appellant, which have since been expunged by this Tribunal in .Appeal No,9 of 1997 decided on 6-6-1998, being in contravention of the laid down instructions so also based on the mala fide on the part of the Reporting Officer. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon, (1) 1988 PLC (C.S.) 96, (2) 1984 PLC (C.S.) 1169, (3) 1991 PLC (C.S.) 551, and (4) 1996 SCMR 256.
4. In rebuttal, the learned Assistant, Advocate-General on behalf of the official respondents has argued that the appellant's behaviours, attitude and conduct during his entire service career remained harsh and he is accused of gross misconduct/misbehaviour. He added that there is nothing wrong in the remarks contained in the A.C.R. And that the Reporting Officer being the Principal of the same College was in better position to judge, evaluate and assess the overall working, conduct and behaviour of the appellant including other subordinates.
5. We have anxiously considered the above submissions, minutely scrutinized the record placed before us and thoroughly gone through the case law cited at the bar by the appellant.
6. There is no denial of the facts that there is no other adverse entry in the appellant's A.C.R. Dossier barring for the year, 1995 and the impugned report for the year, 1996. So far adverse entries in the A.C.R. Of 1996 the same were already expunged by this Tribunal in Appeal No,9 of 1997 decided on 6-6-1998. Being in contravention of the laid down instructions so also based on the mala fide on the part of the Reporting, Officer. It is pertinent to mention here that the Reporting Officer of the A.C.R. For the year, 1995 is same as that of year, 1996 namely Professor Waqar Ahmed Khan. So far the reports prior to 1995 are concerned, we have carefully examined the relevant record produced by Mr. Ayaz Hussain, Superintendent in the office of the Secretary to Government of Sindh, Education Department, Karachi, which shows that in all the earlier reports the appellant's intelligence, confidence and will power, integrity, acceptance of responsibilities, preservance devotion to duty, relations with his superiors/ colleagues/subordinates, knowledge, analytical ability supervision and guidance, quality of work, etc.. Were reported good, but only during the last two years viz 1995 and 1996 the same appellant was rated and assessed as poor and below average, which apparently shows the mala fide on the part of the Reporting Officer. It also appears that even the Countersigning Officer did not apply his mind, which leads us to the only possible conclusion, as alleged by the appellant, that the remarks have been recorded due to the personal disliking or bias of the Reporting Officer and that of Countersigning Officer. The impugned adverse remarks in these circumstances are unfounded and uncalled for.
7. The appellant has submitted that the adverse remarks in the A.C.R. Against him were due to mala fide and personal enmity of Professor Waqar Ahmed Khan (Reporting Officer), whose son Akhlaq Ahmed Khan was Laboratory Assistant with appellant, was a habitual latecomer and absconder from duty. He (Mr. Akhlaq) was originally posted in Chemistry Department, he was transferred time and again from one Department to other and eventually to Jamia Millia College because of his uncalled for conduct, behaviour and attitude. The appellant has further contended that when Professor Waqar Ahmed Khan took over as Acting Principal of the college he brought his son back to the college. The appellant in a meeting reported against said Akhlaq Ahmed which annoyed his father Professor Waqar Ahmed Khan. Apprehending victimization the appellant first wrote the Department on 26-5-1996 and thereafter on 3-8-1996 and again on 11-8-1996, that he apprehends that Professor Waqar will not report in his favour. The respondent No,2 in his written statement stated that in fact the appellant remained non-cooperative, disobedient and arrogant throughout the period Professor Waqar Ahmed Khan worked as Principal of the said college who time and again reported against the appellant to the Directorate of Colleges Education, Karachi. Be that as it may, but the fact remains that the relations between the appellant and the said Reporting Officer were strained. The appellant time and again submitted applications against the Principal/Reporting Officer that his rights may be safeguarded so that he may not become victim of personal grudge of the said Principal for the purpose of A.C.R. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Principal/Reporting Officer was hostile and harboring against the appellant. We may quote here para.14 of the instructions regarding writing of A.C.R. As under:-- "(14)Manner of writing the Reports.--The opinion expressed in the C.R. Should be the result of careful consideration, no personal bias, or favouritism should colour the report, the Reporting Officer/Countersigning Officer, should be in a position to justify his views, if called upon to do so."
' In a case of Ch. Saeed Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan 1996 SCMR 256, the Honourable Supreme Court in a somewhat similar circumstances has observed as under:-- "The remarks of the Countersigning Officer prima facie seem to be biased and result of hostility which both appellant and he had been nursing. If any adverse remarks in the A.C.R. Is biased unreasonable and contrary to facts, the same cannot be allowed to remain on record. It is the duty of the Reporting and Counsel signing Officer to give an honest, reasonable and unbiased assessm ent of the civil servant uninfluenced by personal likes and dislikes, prejudices and partiality. Any action suffering from such infirmities can have no legal sanction to exist. While commenting on the principles governing the exercise of discretionary power by an authority, Dc Smith in Judicial Review or Administrative Action 4th Edition by J.M. Evans, inter alia observe; "It must act in good faith, must have regard to all relevant considerations and must not be awayed by irrelevant considerations, must not seek to promote purposes alien to the letter or to the spirit of the legislation that gives it power to act, and must not act arbitrarily or capriciously. Nor where a judgment must be made that certain facts exist may a discretion be validity exercised on the basis of an erroneous assumption about those facts' ."
8. Admittedly, the appellant and. Reporting Officer were in same grade viz BPS.19. Para. 2.53 of a guide to performance Evaluation provides that according to instruction 2 under subsection 'A' printed on page 4 of the C.R. Form, a Reporting Officer should be of next higher status and concerned with the work of the officer reported upon. It is thus clear that the above instruction was not followed and complied with rather the same were violated.
9. As far delay in communication of the adverse remarks is concerned, admittedly the adverse remarks in the A.C.R. Of 1996 were communicated to the appellant vide letter dated 18-12-1997 i,e, nearly after one year, thus the mandatory instructions given in para. 3 of the Instructions about the confidential report issued by Government of Sindh, were violated. According to para. 3(a) of the said instruction, a report is to be written for every calendar year, it shall be initiated in the 1st week of January by the Reporting Officer, while the Countersigning Authority shall record this remarks in the 2nd week of January. Para.3(b) says that the final authority will furnish a certificate under his own signature to the Services and General Administration Department by 5th February to the effect that all reports, have been completed and placed on the Dossier. Below para. 3 (supra), there is a Note which say that time schedule has been laid down, so that the remarks are based on the performance of Government servants during the calendar year, they relate. Otherwise consciously subsequent events can contribute towards formation of opinion in respect of the past". In the instant case the respondents have failed to give any reason or justification of any sort of this delay.
It is thus clear that the A.C.R. Was not recorded in accordance with the provisions so laid down in this behalf, which in the given circumstances leads us to the only conclusion that the adverse remarks in the A.C.R. Of the appellant are unfounded and uncalled for.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, factual and legal aspects coupled with the earlier findings of this Tribunal in Appeal No,9 of 1997, we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and expunged the adverse remarks from appellant's A.C.R. For the year 1996, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11. The above are the reasons of our short order, dated 16-11-2001 whereby the appeal of the appellant was allowed.
' Given under our hands and the Seal of this Tribunal this 5th day of December, 2001.- Appeal accepted.
2002 F L C (C.S.) 1256 [Lahore High Court] Before Ch. Ljaz Ahmad, J Dr. MUHAMMAD AMJAD AMEEN and 2 others versus MINISTRY OF HEALTH, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary Health and 6 others Writ Petition No,18173 of 2001, heard on 31st October, 2001. Constitution of Pakistan (1973)- ----Art.199---Constitutional petition---Principes of waiver and estoppel--Applicability---Civil service---Appointment-Petitioners who were initially appointed as Senior Registrars were subsequently promoted as Assistant Professors on regular basis---Three posts of Associate Professors having fallen vacant the Authority issued public notice for initial appointment for the said posts---Petitioners who had also applied for appointments had filed Constitutional petition wherein they had challenged the issuance of public notice and claimed their promotion-Validity-Petitioners who in obedience of advertisement had submitted their applications, their Constitutional petition was liable to be dismissed on principles of waiver and estoppel and also on principles of approbate and reprobate---Constitutional jurisdiction was equitable jurisdiction which could not be exercised in favour of a person who had come to Court with gross negligence. [pp. 1257, 1259, 1260, 1261, 1262] A, B, C, D & E Water and Power Development Authority v. Irtiqa Rasool Hashmi and another 1987 SCMR 359; Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1996 SC 324; Sarwar Ali Khan's case 1994 PLC (C.S. 411; Muhammad Ahsan-ul-Haq v.
Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Interior Islamabad and 11 others 1997 PLC (C.S.) 127; Government of N.W.-F.P and others v. Buner Khan and others 1985 SCMR 1158; Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division, Islamabad and 14 others 2000 PLC (C.S.) 600; Muhammad Anis and others v. Abdul Haseeb and others PLD 1994 SC 539; Khalid Mahmood Wattoo v. Government of Punjab and others 1998 SCMR 2280; Province of the Punjab through Secretary Health Department v. Dr. S. Muhammad Zafar Bukhari, PLD 1997 SC 351; Haji Muhammad v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2000 SCMR 1555; Messrs Pakistan State Oil Company Limited v. Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) and another 2001 PLC (C.S.) 907; Muhammad Ashraf Chaudhry v. Chairman Central Board of Revenue and another 2001 PLC (C.S.) 781; S. Baqar Zaheer Rizvi v. Secretary Housing and Works Division, and 3 others 2000 PLC (C.S.) 1151); Dr. Ahmad Salman Waris Assistant Professor Services Hospital, Lahore v. Dr. Naeem Akhtar and 5 others PLD 1997 SC 382; Dr. Amanul Haq v. Government of Punjab 2000 PLC (C.S.) 123; Government of Punjab v.
Dr. Amanul Haq 2000 PSC 599; Tahir Latif Sheikh v. Federation of Pakistan and another 2000 PLC (C.S.) 582; Muhammad Raziq v. Secretary Establishment Division 2000 PLC (C.S.) 994; Dr. Shaheen Afzal v. Member (Admn) Capital Development Authority Islamabad and 19 others (2000 PLC (C.S.)
633; Ghulam Rasool's case PLD 1971 SC 376; Abdul Sattar Yousuf's case 1984 CLC 194; Sulemaa's case 1970 SCMR 574; Begum Zainab Tiwana's case PLD 1967 Lah. 977; Riasat Ali Azad's case PLD 1968 Lah. 561; Malik Muhammad Din's case PLD 1968 Lah. 544 and Mohsin Khan's case 1969 SCMR 306 ref.
Javaid Shaukat Malik and Hafiz Tariq Nasim for Petitioner. Maqbool Elahi Malik, Advocate-General alongwith Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan and Tallat Farooq Sheikh for Respondents.
' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioners were appointed as Senior Registrar in BPS-18 in the year 1985. Subsequently they were promoted as Assistant Professors on regular basis by the respondents vide Notification dated 6-6-1995. In the year 2001 A three posts had fallen vacant in view of the following circumstances:-
(i) Dr. Muhammad Sarfraz Ahmad and Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, Associate Professors were promoted as Professors by the respondents vide Notification, dated 17th May, 2001.
(ii) Professor Dr. Shameem Jaffery had expired after sometime in May, 2001 ' The learned counsel of the petitioners submits that there are two methods to fill the vacant posts of Associate Professors which are as follows:-
(i) By way of initial appointment.
(ii) (ii) By way of promotion.
' The quota is also reserved with regard to the aforesaid categories by the competent authority at the ratio of 33% by way of promotion and 66% by way of initial appointment. The respondents issued public notice in Daily Nawa-i-Waqt dated 15th of July, 2001 for initial appointments for different categories including the posts of Associate Professors. The petitioners being aggrieved filed Writ Petition No,15181 of 2001 on the ground that according to the rules of the respondents, the respondents have to promote the petitioners first in their quota reserved tor promotion and then issue advertisement for fresh/initial recruitment with regard to the posts in question which was disposed by this Court vide order dated 15-8-2001 and copy of the writ petition was sent to the respondent No,1 who was directed to decide the application of the petitioners within 15 days after receiving the order of this Court. Petitioners were directed to appear before respondent No,1 in his office on 20-8-2001 at 11 a.m. Who was directed to pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law within 15 days till 4-9-2001. The learned counsel of the petitioners submits that respondent No,1 failed to redress the grievance of the petitioners as directed by this Court vide order dated 15- 8-2001. The respondent No,1 envisaged a change in the criteria and had not yet finally decided and notified. He further submits that on account of the inactions of the respondents, the petitioners are penalized in case the fresh teaching staff is inducted by the respondents before the promotion of the petitioners then the petitioners would stand alighted in seniority. He further submits that action of the respondents is hit by Article 25 of the Constitution as the fresh recruitments are being conducted on the basis of the old rules whereas the criteria qua the petitioners for promotion is under review. In support of his contention he relied upon the case of Water and Power Development Authority v. Irtiqa Rasool Hashmi and another (1987 SCMR 359). He further submits that petitioners are highly qualified persons and fulfil the criteria published by the respondents in the advertisement in Daily Nawa-i-Waqt dated 15th July, 2001. The petitioners have legitimate expectations for promotion in support of his contention, he relied upon Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1996. SC 324). He further submits that criteria was not notified by the respondents, therefore, petitioners stood qualified to be promoted as Associate Professors. In support of his contentions, he relied upon Sarwar Ali Khan's case (1994 PLC (C.S.) 411). He further submits that there is no adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioners till date, therefore, petitioners are entitled to be promoted in the next higher post in terms of the rules of the respondents. In support of his contention, he relied upon the case of Muhammad Ahsan-ul-Haq v.
Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Interior Islamabad and 11 others (1997 PLC (C.S.)
127.) He further submits that it is the duty and obligation of the respondents to treat officers of all groups fairly, justly and equitably and petitioners are promotees to be considered for promotion with effect from the dates when vacancies in their quota have become available. In support of his contentions, he relied upon Government of N.W.-F.P and others v. Buner Khan and others (1985 SCMR 1158) and Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division, Islamabad and 14 others (2000 PLC (C.S.) 600).
2. Mr. Maqbool Elahi Malik, Advocate-General Punjab submits that in obedience of the advertisement, petitioners submitted their applications, therefore, writ petition liable to be dismissed on the well-known principle of waiver and estoppel. He further submits that petitioners in fact challenged the vires of the rules through this writ petition and this Court has no jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the matter by virtue of Article.212 read with section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act as the matter pertains to the terms and conditions of the petitioners. In support of his contentions, he relied upon Muhammad Anis and others v. Abdul Haseeb and others (PLD 1994 SC 539). The learned counsel of the respondent submits that matter pertains to the terms and conditions of the petitioners and the writ petition is not maintainable in view of bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:- - ' Khalid Mahmood Wattoo v. Government of Punjab and others (1998 SCMR 2280).
' Province of the Punjab through Secretary Health Department v. Dr. S. Muhammad Zafar Bukhari, (PLD 1997 SC 351).
' Haji Muhammad v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2000 SCMR 1555).
' Messrs Pakistan State Oil Company Limited v. Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) and another (2001 PLC (C.S.) 907).
' Muhammad Ashraf Chaudhry v. Chairman Central Board of Revenue and another (2001 PLC (CS)
781) and ' S. Baqar Zaheer Rizvi v. Secretary Housing and Works Division, and 3 others (2000 PLC (C.S.) 1151).
' Tne learned counsel of the petitioner In rebuttal submits that petitioners tiled this writ petition with the prayer that respondents be directed to act in accordance with law and law laid down by the superior Courts. He further submits that judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by. Virtue of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution. The action of the respondents is in derogation of the principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, therefore. Writ petition is maintainable. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments : ' Dr. Ahmad Salman Waris Assistant Professor Services Hospital, Lahore v. Dr. Naeem Akhtar and 5 others, (PLD 1997 SC 382), ' Dr. Amanul Haq v. Government of Punjab (2000 PLC (CS) 123), Government of Punjab v. Dr. Amanul Haq (2000 PSC 599) and ' Tahir Latif Sheikh v. Federation of Pakistan and another (2000 PLC (CS) 582).
' Mr. Javaid Shaukat Malik, Advocate in supplement of the argument of Hafiz Tariq Naseem, Advocate added that no final order has been passed by the respondents, therefore, petitioners have no alternative remedy to file appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. He further submits that matter pertains to the promotion of the petitioners, therefore, petitioners have no right to file appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal by virtue of proviso of section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act. The matter pertains to the eligibility of the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners have only remedy to file Constitutional petition. In support of his contention, he relied upon Muhammad Raziq v. Secretary Establishment Division (2000 PLC (CS) 994) and Dr. Shaheen Afzal v. Member (Admn)
Capital Development Authority Islamabad and 19 others (2000 PLC (CS) 633). He summed up his argument that action of the respondents is hit by Articles 2, 2-A and 3 of the Constitution, therefore, action of the respondents is liable to be set aside.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.
4. Without adverting to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties. I intend to decide writ petition on the sole question of law that writ petition is not maintainable in view of the conduct of the petitioners as the petitioners submitted their applications in obedience of the advertisement of the. Respondents. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the brief resume from the report and parawise comments tiled by respondent No,2 which are as under:-- "Applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to five posts of Associate Professor Surgeon (BS-19) on all Punjab basis in the Punjab Health Department were invited by the respondent No,2 (Commission) through Advertisement in the Press. In response to the advertisement 25 applications were received, out of which 4 applications including petitioner No,2 rejected and remaining 21 including petitioners Nos.1 and 3 were called for interview on 15, 16, 17-10-2001.
Petitioner No, 1 was called for interview on 17-10-2001 but he remained absent. Application of petitioner No,2 was rejected for lack of requisite research work and he was informed accordingly.
Petitioner No,3 was called for interview on 16-10-2001 and he appeared in the interview.
Result/recommendation is pending due to Court Orders dated 5-10-2001 in instant Writ Petition No,18173 of 2001."
' Para. B of report and para. 2.6 of the parawise comments tiled by respondent No, I are as under:-- "A requisition for initial recruitment to the five posts of Associate Professor (Surgery) BS-19 in the Punjab Health Department was placed to Punjab Service Commission in July, 2001. The Punjab Service Commission made consolidated advertisement on 15-7-2001 in this regard. The applications were received by the P.P.S.C: According to authorities of P.P.S.C. 25 applications were received, out of which 4 applications including the petitioner No,2 were rejected and remaining 21 including the petitioners Nos.1 and 3 were called for interview. The details of the petitioners is as under:-- ' Petitioner No,1:---Dr. Muhammad Amjad Ameen was called for interview but he remained absent.
' Petitioner No,2:---The application of Dr. Yawar Saeed was rejected by the P.P.S.C. For lack of requisite research work.
Petitioner No,3:---Dr. Anwar UI Haq was called for interview. He appeared before the Board.
(2.6) As already explained in para. 2.4. It is pertinent to observer that all the three petitioners in the instant writ petition have applied to P.P.S.C. For recruitment as Associate Professor. Details have already been submitted in para.8 of report."
' It is pertinent to mention here that petitioners tiled this writ petition on 4-10-2001 and all the petitioners submitted their applications for direct recruitment qua the posts in question. According to the advertisement Annexure- D attached with the writ petition, applications must be received in the office of the Secretary of Punjab Public Service Commission before 13-8-2001. This fact was concealed by the petitioners in the contents of the writ petition. It is admitted fact that the petitioners did submit their applications, therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the well-known principle of approbate and reprobate as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ghulam Rasool's case (PLD 1971 SC 376). The principle of estoppel and waiver is attracted in the present case. I am fortified by reported Judgment of D.B. Of Karachi High Court in Abdul Sattar Yousuf s case (1984 CLC 194) and the relevant observation is as follows:- "I also find substantial force in the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners having taken part as share-holder of the Company in the extraordinary general meeting of the company held on 22-2-1979 and having elected petitioner No,2 and one Hamid A.
Ghani as Director of Board of Director of Company Constitution, under the provisions of P.0.1. 1972 and having consistently taken part in the management of the Company, completely acquiescenced in the action taken by the Federal Government and rather, therefore, debarred from objecting to the same. For the aforesaid reasons we dismissed all the above three writ petitions on the ground of acquiescence on the part of the petitioners in the action of Federal Government."
' 1 am also fortified by the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Suleman's case (1970 SCMR 574) and the relevant observation is as follows:-- "In any case, by doing so, they had acquiescenced in the impugned order through petition clearly suffer from (aches and the High Court perfectly justified in dismissing it on that ground."
' I am also fortified by the reported judgment of this Court in Begum Zainab Tiwanas's case (PLD 1967 Lah 977) and laid down the principle that a party which has acquiescence in erroneous order or irregular proceedings even defective jurisdiction is not entitled to question it subsequently by invoking a high prerogative jurisdiction." Reference can also be made Riasat Ali Azad's case (PLD 1968 Lah. 561) and Malik Muhammad Din's case (PLD 1968 Lah. 544). It is also settled principle of law that Constitutional jurisdiction is equitable jurisdiction which cannot be exercised in favour of a person who has come to Court with gross negligence. I am fortified by the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Mohsin Khan's case (1969 SCMR 306) and Suleman's case (1970 SCMR 574).
5. The learned counsel of the petitioners pointed out that respondent No,1 failed to redress the grievance of the petitioners as directed by this Court in order dated 15-8-2001 in Writ Petition No,15181 of 2000.The learned Advocate-General was directed to produce the original file which was produced before me at 3-00 p.m. After perusing the original tile, I do not initiate contempt proceedings against respondent No,
1. However, he is directed to finalize the matter as early as possible in terms of the order of this Court dated 15-8-2001 in Writ Petition No,15181 of 2001. He is further directed to submit report the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. /Order accordingly.