' Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was initially appointed as Litigation Assistant in the Bahauddin Zakaria University on 11-2-1978. Through a notification dated 27-4-1995. Four posts of Administrative Officer were advertised by the University. The petitioner applied for the said post and was interviewed on 28-5-1995 alongwith other applicants. As a result of the interview respondent No,4 to 8 were appointed as Administrative Officers while respondent No,9 was appointed as Assistant Controller of Exam. (Confidential Printing). The petitioner was ignored therefore he filed a petition under section 11-A of the Bahauddin Zakariya University Act, 1975 through proper channel. This revision was returned to the petitioner by respondent No,2 vide order dated 23-5-1996 and received by the petitioner on 1-6-1996. The petitioner being aggrieved of the said order has approached this Court on the ground that firstly he was not considered fit to be appointed as Administrative Officer and secondly his revision has not . Been entertained.
2. Before the learned counsel for the petitioner could open his arguments in support of his case, learned counsel for the respondent has taken a preliminary objection that the instant writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner's services in the Bahauddin Zakariya University is not governed by statutory rules. It is contended that under section 52 of the Bahauddin Zakaria University Act, 1975 the rules, regulations, statutes etc. Of the Punjab University have been adopted by the Bahauddin Zakaria University. Since all the rules, statutes and regulations of the Punjab University are not statutory rules as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1992 SCM R 1093 therefore the petitioner's services are not governed by statutory rules. It is further argued that in identical cases relating to Islamia University Bahawalpur where the rules are identical to the rules of Bahauddin Zakaria University, their employees were declared to be having the relation of master and servant and thus it was directed that they cannot invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction before this Court.
Learned counsel relies on 2003 M LD 507, and PLC 1999 (C.S.)
60. Further relies on an unreported judgment of Multan Bench of this Court delivered in I.C.A. No,68 of 1995 in Writ Petition No,2003 of 1995 wherein it was held that the employees of the Bahauddin Zakariya University are not entitled to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article. 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 as their services are not governed through any statutory rules.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that leaving aside all the other prayers, the petitioner prays that his revision filed under section 11-A of the Bahauddin Zakariya University Act, 1975 was dismissed by an Assistant Registrar (Admn,) acting on behalf of Registrar of the University vide order dated 23-5-1996 is illegal. It is further contended that under section 11-A of the Act ibid, a revision is competent before the Chancellor, either exercising his suo motu powers or otherwise. The case of the petitioner falls in the provision of "otherwise" i,e, on a move made by an aggrieved person. The question whether this revision was competent or not was to be decided by the Chancellor and none else.
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Undoubtedly, the powers of revision of the Chancellor under section 11-A of the BZU Act are statutory powers, the same can only be exercised by the Chancellor and none else. If the petitioner has filed a petition under the said provision of the. Ordinance, then, it was for the Chancellor to consider whether such an application/revision is competent or not, therefore, the order passed by the Assistant Registrar (Admn.) on behalf of the Registrar dated 23-5-1996 is illegal and without lawful authority and is declared as such. The result would be that revision filed by the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending before the Chancellor, which. Will be disposed of either way in accordance with law. Disposed of.