Dr. GHULAM SARWAR vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Vice-Chancellor S — 2024 PLC(CS) 402 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Dr. GHULAM SARWAR VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Vice-Chancellor S.10----Professors, appointment of---Selection Board/Scrutiny Committee recommended one of the petitioners for appointment as Professor---On such recommendation, Syndicate appointed said petitioner as Professor on regular basis, on two years' probation---Feeling aggrieved respondent No.6 filed an appeal against petitioner's appointment before the Chancellor, who declared petitioner's appointment as null and void---Certain other professors also challenged the Chancellor's actions of constituting a committee to examine all cases of appointments---Validity---Perusal of record showed that from the very beginning of the respondent-University way back in the year 2002, the standard practice of the Selection Board was to recommend candidates to the Syndicate for appointment against the posts of Associate Professor and Professor on the basis of assessment of foreign and local referees---However, in its meeting held on 22-23rd July, 2018, the Selection Board digressed its own practice and decided to award marks to the candidates for the posts in question out of 30 marks, which decision was forthwith implemented without getting it approved---In that backdrop the Chancellor of the University after discussing material aspects of the matter, proceeded to nullify the proceedings/recommendations of the Selection Board dated 22nd-23rd July, 2018 and the subsequent approval by the Syndicate dated 27 July, 2018---Evidently, the Chancellor had passed a speaking order as per law, however, there was only one aspect of the matter which needed reconsideration on part of the respondent-authorities i.e. whether petitioners procured their appointments through ill-will, mala fide, fraud or illegal means and if the appointees were not at fault, the appointing authority ought to have been proceeded against as the party should not be made to suffer for action or inaction of the authority, who was obliged to follow the law---High Court noted with concern that the Selection Board and Syndicate, who appointed petitioners to the posts in question, presumably, the applicable law/rules and regulations should have been on their sleeves at the time of appointment of petitioners---If respondents were of the opinion that appointment of petitioners was made without approval of the competent authority, then instead of de-notifying petitioners' appointment, respondents should have blamed themselves rather than claiming premium of their own wrongs---Constitutional petitions were allowed to the extent that respondent-University shall re-examine each and every case and if the persons, who had already been appointed, were not at fault, and no mala fide was there on the part of the Selection Board, they shall not be disturbed and the persons, who were higher on merit, possibility of creating new seats shall also be explored so as to redress their grievance for their appointment on merit in terms of the advertisement already published.

Dr. GHULAM SARWAR vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Vice-Chancellor S — 2024 PLC(CS) 402 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLC