Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Mst. Tahira Akhter VS Respondent: The Chancellor, Women University Multan/the Governor of Punjab Honorable Justice Malik Javid Iqbal Wains Sh. Jamshed Hayat , Rana Muhammad Asif Saeed
CITATION: 2026 MLD 1205 CASE: 2026L2558 TITLE: Mst. Tahira Akhter VS The Chancellor, Women University Multan/the Governor of Punjab Honorable Justice Malik Javid Iqbal Wains Sh. Jamshed Hayat , Rana Muhammad Asif Saeed COURT: LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE YEAR: 2026 JOURNAL: MLD ============================================================
305 2026 M L D 1205 [Lahore (Multan Bench)] Before Malik Javid Iqbal Wains, J Mst. Tahira Akhter ---Petitioner Versus The Chancellor, Women University Multan/the Governor of Punjab and 4 others---Respondents Writ Petition No.11202 of 2023, heard on 22nd May, 2025. (a) Women University Multan Act (XV of 2010)--- ----Ss.2(n), 14(1), 15(1), 16(1), 19, 20 & 31(3)---Appointment to the post of Registrar---Petitioner candidate recommended by the selection committee---New material facts surfacing before final appointment---Syndicate ordering reconsideration and re-evaluation of petitioner s appointment---Legality---Authority and powers of the Syndicate being the executive authority of the university---Scope---The Women University Multan advertised posts, including Registrar, for which the petitioner applied and was recommended by the search committee, however, during subsequent syndicate meetings, new material facts emerged leading the syndicate to refer the matter back, after which the committee withdrew its earlier recommendation, and the syndicate eventually declared the entire recruitment process null and void on the ground that prescribed terms and conditions for such appointments had not been framed under the Act and decided to re-advertise the posts---Petitioner s revision before the chancellor was dismissed following which she challenged the syndicate s decisions and the fresh advertisement through the present constitutional petition, raising the legal issue as to whether the syndicate lawfully exercised its jurisdiction in reconsidering and re-evaluating the recruitment process and whether any vested right had accrued in favour of the petitioner arising from her earlier recommendation by the selection committee ?---Held: While the process for recommending a suitable candidate was validly initiated by the duly constituted search committee , the final appointment of the Registrar, under S.14(1) of the Act, 2010, was subject to the terms and conditions as may be prescribed ---If new material facts or circumstances came to light that were not available to the recommending body at the time of its deliberation and prior to finalizing any appointment, the syndicate, as the highest executive body of the university or a public institution, could lawfully intervene to reconsider or withhold approval of there commendation---The Syndicate, as the appointing authority, was not bound to accept a recommendation blindly---If it learnt of new facts affecting eligibility, integrity, or merit, it had the institutional responsibility to prevent improper appointments by sending the recommendation back for review, not by rejecting it outright without a due process---If the university syndicate was expressly authorized to appoint a Registrar, the power to suspend, defer, seek clarification, or refer back a flawed recommendation was implied, otherwise, the syndicate would be bound to act on incomplete or flawed processes, undermining its responsibility---Upon new facts coming to light, the syndicate, instead of rejecting there commendation of the petitioner summarily, returned the matter for reconsideration, thereby allowing the selection committee to re-evaluate its recommendation in light of the additional information---This act did not amount to overstepping its authority, rather reflected an adherence to the principles of administrative prudence and due process---Syndicate acted within its lawful authority in returning there commendations of the search committee for reconsideration---University was directed to fill the vacancy for the post of registrar at earliest since same was pending since long---Constitutional petitions were dismissed, in circumstances. All Public Universities BPS Teachers Association v. Federation of Pakistan 2025 SCMR 322 rel. (b) Women University Multan Act (XV of 2010)--- ----Ss.2(xx) & 20---Syndicate of the university---Role, powers and scope---Section 20 of the Act, 2010 designates the Syndicate as the executive body of the University---In legal terms, this confers both administrative authority and responsibility for the overall governance of the institution---Section 20(1) of the Act, 2010 provides that the Syndicate shall, take effective measures subject to the provisions of this Act and statutes meaning thereby the Syndicate must exercise its powers within the framework provided by law---It cannot act arbitrarily or ultra vires (beyond its powers), but enjoys broad discretion in are as not specifically restricted---Further, the term take effective measures imposes a positive legal duty on the Syndicate to ensure, quality in teaching and research, advancement of technological development, encouragement of academic publications and general improvement in academic pursuits---Moreover, subsection (xx) of S.2 also gives authority to the Syndicate to appoint members to the various Authorities, committees and bodies in a prescribed manner---This assigns to the Syndicate not merely a passive supervisory role, but an active and dynamic responsibility that encompasses policy formulation, strategic planning, and prudent allocation of institutional resources to achieve the objectives set forth under the Act---The decision making authority (e.g. Syndicate) has the ultimate power to make the final selection---It is not bound by the selection body s recommendation and can differ with their opinion based on the totality of the circumstances. (c) Women University Multan Act (XV of 2010)--- ----Ss.14 & 20---Appointment of Registrar---Recommendations made by selection committee---Whether such recommendations are binding upon appointing authority---Held: Recommendations made by selection or search bodies, though carrying considerable weight, are not binding upon the appointing authority, if new facts or circumstances emerge prior to the final decision---The law recognizes that where material developments arise after the recommendation, but before appointment, the competent authority is entitled to reassess the matter in light of the updated information---This principle ensures that the final decision is made after a comprehensive evaluation of all relevant and current factors---Selection committees are responsible for assessing candidates for a position and making recommendations to the decision-making authority, however these are not legally enforceable and are considered as an advisory opinion. (d) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art.199---Appointment to the post of Registrar of University---Constitutional petition filed by the candidate---Syndicate returned the matter for re-evaluation after selection committee s recommendation---Challenge to---Petitioner candidate claiming accrual of vested rights---Held: No vested right accrues in incomplete selection processes, and that selection recommendations may be revisited where news facts or legal uncertainties come to light---It is well-settled that mere selection or recommendation by a committee does not create any enforceable or vested right to appointment---The constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked solely on the basis of such expectancy without a clear statutory entitlement. Zeeshan Anjum and others v. Province of Sindh through I.G. Police and another 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1024 ref. (e) Educational institution--- ----Appointment of the Registrar of a University, process of---After finalization of recruitment process new facts came to light which led to the scrapping of the whole recruitment process---Doctrine of implied powers ---Applicability in the mentioned context---The doctrine of implied powers , where a statutory body is given a power (e.g. to appoint a Registrar), it is also implied that the body has the power to seek clarification, request reconsideration, or defer action where new facts come to light, so long as it does not usurp the role of the recommending authority. (f) Interpretation of statutes--- ---- Necessary implication , doctrine of---The said doctrine is a well-established rule of statutory interpretation, which mandates that where a statute confers a power, it implicitly confers all powers necessary to carryout that power---This doctrine ensures the functionality and effectiveness of statutory authorities by allowing them to take reasonable actions that are, incidental to their express powers, essential to fulfill their duties, and not inconsistent with the statute itself. (g) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope--- High Court while exercising constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, is not expected to act as a selection or appointing authority so as to substitute its own assessment for that of the competent body. Dr. Mir Alam Jan v. Dr.Muhammad Shahzad and others 2008 SCMR 960 rel. (h) Judicial review--- ----Scope---Judicial review is corrective and confined to examining the legality of administrative actions, and does not extend to substituting judicial opinion in place of executive wisdom---Courts must refrain from drawing adverse inferences on motives unless mala fide is clearly pleaded and proved. Fauji Foundation v. Shamimur Rehman PLD 1983 SC 457 rel. Sh. Jamshed Hayat for Petitioner. Rana Muhammad Asif Saeed for Respondent. Muhammad Asif Ali, Law Officer, Women University, Multan. Date of hearing: 22nd May, 2025. Judgment Malik Javid Iqbal Wains, J .--- This single judgment shall decide the instant writ petition along with Writ Petition No.7992 of 2022, as both petitions involve the same parties and raise identical questions of fact and law. 2. Brief facts of the petitions are that the respondents-University invited applications for the posts of Registrar, Treasurer and Controller of Examinations through an advertisement dated 19.03.2021, and in pursuance whereof, the petitioner applied for the post of Registrar. The meeting of the Search Committee, already constituted by the Vice Chancellor, was held on 03.01.2022 for the recruitment process of these statutory posts, which after following due process, recommended the name of the petitioner to the Syndicate for her appointment as Registrar. During 31st meeting of the Syndicate held on 12.01.2022, the recommendations of the Search Committee were examined; however, the matter was referred back to the Committee to deliberate its recommendations in the light of new facts/information communicated to the University. The case of the petitioner was again examined by the Search Committee in its meeting held on 03.02.2022, whereby in the light of new facts and circumstances (mentioned in the committee meeting, and need not to be reproduced), said committee had decided to withdraw its earlier recommendations and further recommended as under:- ii. That the advertisement dated:19.03.2021 for the appointment for the post of Registrar lacked clarity with regard to the lump sum package, rather than pay protection etc. meant for regular employee as is enshrined in contract appointment policy, Government of Punjab dated: 29.12.2004, therefore, this disparity need to be clarified to avoid any complication. 3. The 33rd meeting of the Syndicate was held on 28.04.2022 wherein the recommendations of the Search Committee were also examined, however, being not found the prescribed/approved manners and terms and conditions for the post of Registrar and other statutory posts, the entire recruitment process against the advertisement dated 19.03.2021 was declared null and void and it was decided to re-advertise the posts. The relevant para of the Syndicate decision is hereby reproduced as under: - Decision: The House inquired about the approved/prescribed manners and terms and conditions for the appointment of statutory posts as per Sections 14(1), 15(1) and 16(1) of WUM Act, 2010. The Chair informed the House that the University has not prescribed and approved manner and terms and conditions as required by the Act and this is an oversight. The House deliberated all aspects of this matter and unanimously observed that the whole procedure for the appointment of statutory posts was not in cognizance with the Act of the University. The House unanimously declared the whole recruitment process against advertisement dated 19-03-2021 as Null and Void and decided that no recommendation for appointment of statutory posts can be placed before the Syndicate without prescribed/approved manners and terms and conditions. Furthermore, the House unanimously decided that these statutory posts will be re-advertised once the prescribed manners and terms and conditions as per sections 14(1), 15(1) and 16(1) of WUM Act, 2010 are decided and duly approved by the Syndicate as the competent authority. 4. The petitioner challenged the minutes of the meeting of the syndicate dated 12.01.2022 and 28.04.2022 by filing a writ petition No.7544/2022 before this Court, which was remitted to respondent No.1/Chancellor in shape of revision for its decision in terms of Section 10(5) of the Women University, Multan Act, 2010 (hereinafter Act, 2010 ), however the same was dismissed vide order dated 23.11.2022 in the following terms: 7. ..I have carefully examined the proceedings of the meetings of the Syndicate dated 12th January, 2022 and 28th April, 2022. I am of considered opinion that nothing contained in decisions of the Syndicate dated 12th January 2022 and 28th April 2022 is contrary to the law or against the interest of academic excellence of the University, religious or cultural ideology, or national integrity. That said, the revision petition of Mrs. Tahira Akhtar referred to this forum by the Hon ble Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in terms of Section 10(5) of the Women University Multan Act, 2010 merits no consideration thus liable to be dismissed. 8. For what has been discussed above, I, in exercise of powers conferred upon me, in terms of Section 10(5) of the Women University Multan Act, 2010, am minded to dismiss the revision petition of Ms. Tahira Akhtar being devoid of merit. The University, is however, advised to get all the legal formalities completed and make sure that regular incumbent to the post of Registrar is appointed without further loss of time. 5. Being aggrieved of the orders of the syndicate and Chancellor of the University as well as advertisement published on 22.05.2022 for the Post of Registrar, the petitioner filed these petitions. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents-University unlawfully declared the recruitment process including advertisement dated 19.03.2021 for the post of Registrar and other statutory posts as null and void on a false pretext that no prescribed terms and conditions exist for such appointments. He further submits that all terms and conditions for appointment of the post of Registrar have been provided in the Act, 2010 and same are envisaging in the advertisement also. Learned counsel adds that despite this decision, a subsequent advertisement was issued for the appointment of statutory posts dated 04.08.2022 without formally notifying any such procedure as pointed out in the 33rd Syndicate meeting, which shows mala fide of the university-syndicate. He argues that the revision filed before respondent No.1/Chancellor was dismissed vide order dated 23.11.2022 without considering the actual facts and circumstances of the case, which order is contrary to law. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that once the petitioner was duly recommended by the Search Committee, her legitimate expectation to be appointed was frustrated without lawful justification. He submits that the Syndicate acted beyond its jurisdiction by referring back the matter to Search Committee, despite the fact that same had reached its logical conclusion, thereby violating the principles of fairness and finality. Learned counsel further contends the petitioner participated in the selection process in good faith, relying on the terms set forth in the University s advertisement, and the University, having initiated the process and shortlisted her through a final recommendation, cannot now resile from its earlier position to the detriment of the petitioner. 8. Conversely, learned counsel for respondents-university opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that mere recommendations by the Search Committee do not confer any enforceable right of appointment upon the petitioner. He further submits that the Syndicate, as the appointing authority, retains discretion to revisit or decline recommendations if statutory compliance or institutional integrity is at stake. Learned counsel adds that after coming into knowledge the new facts about the petitioner, the Syndicate decided to refer the matter back to the Search Committee, which after reconsideration decided not to recommend the petitioner for this post. He argues that the re-advertisement of posts following the annulment of the earlier process demonstrates administrative prudence and is aimed at eliminating procedural deficiencies, not mala fide intent. Lastly, asserts that the Syndicate after framing of new prescribed terms and conditions has already forwarded it to the Chancellor for its onward approval. 9. Arguments heard. Record perused. 10. The pivotal questions for determination in these cases are as under: i. Whether the Syndicate, being the competent appointing authority, acted within the scope of its lawful jurisdiction in returning the petitioner s recommendation for appointment as Registrar to the Search Committee for reconsideration on the basis of purportedly new material facts that allegedly surfaced after the Committee had concluded its deliberations? ii. Whether the Syndicate was justified in declaring the recruitment process for the post of Registrar, initiated pursuant to an earlier advertisement wherein the petitioner was recommended by the Selection Committee, as null and void, and initiated a new process under existed or proposed revised rules and regulations, or whether such actions were taken in excess of its lawful authority? 11. In order to address the above questions, it is essential to examine Sections 14(1), 15(1), and 16(1) of the Act, 2010, which formed the basis of Syndicate decision to declare the entire recruitment process null and void. Section 14 pertains to the appointment of the Registrar , whereas Sections 15 and 16 respectively govern the appointments of the Treasurer and the Controller of Examinations . However, since the matter in the present petition specifically relates to the post of Registrar , the discussion hereinafter shall remain confined to the interpretation and application of Section 14 of the Act, 2010, which is hereby reproduced hereinafter: - 14. Registrar.- (1) The Syndicate shall, on the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor, appoint a Registrar in such manner and on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. (2) The Syndicate shall not appoint a person as Registrar unless she possess the prescribed qualifications and experience. A plain reading of the above provision of law makes it abundantly clear that the authority to appoint a Registrar vests with the Syndicate, but such appointment is contingent upon a recommendation made by the Vice-Chancellor, who performs a gatekeeping or advisory role, ensuring that only suitable candidates are brought forward for consideration. 12. The above provision provides mechanism as in such manner and on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed means that the process of appointment and the service conditions (such as tenure, salary, benefits, and job responsibilities) must conform to the rules or regulations laid down by the University s statutes, rules, or governing regulations. This ensures uniformity, transparency, and procedural fairness in appointments, and prevents arbitrary action. 13. The second clause of Section 14 imposes a mandatory bar to the effect that the Syndicate shall not appoint any person unless the person possesses the prescribed qualifications and experience. The use of the term shall not indicates a prohibitive and non-discretionary obligation. This makes the qualification and experience a legal prerequisite, not merely a guideline or suggestion. This means that any appointment made in violation of this clause would be ultra vires (beyond legal authority), and therefore liable to be declared void or unlawful. 14. Furthermore, the appointment must be carried out in accordance with the manner and terms and conditions as may be prescribed under the relevant Statute. Subsection (2) of Section 14 of the Act, 2010 further restricts the exercise of this power by mandating that no person shall be appointed as Registrar, unless she fulfills the prescribed qualifications and possesses the requisite experience, thereby ensuring that the appointment is made on merit and in compliance with statutory requirements. 15. To further understand the procedural framework regarding appointments to statutory posts, particular to the post of Registrar, reference may be made to the Women University Multan Employees (Appointment, Terms and Conditions of Service) Statutes, 2021 (hereinafter Statutes ), which were approved by the Chancellor in exercise of powers under Section 31(3) of the Act, 2010. These Statutes were notified by the Government of the Punjab, Higher Education Department, vide Notification No.SO(Univ)17-2/2020, dated 22.02.2021. Chapter II of the Statutes deals with appointments and terms and conditions of service, and subsection (3) of Section 4 specifically pertains to the appointments of Registrar, Treasurer, Controller of Examinations, and Vice Chancellor. The relevant provision is reproduced hereinafter for better understanding:- 4. Appointment against a post. (1) (2) (3) For appointment of Registrar, Treasurer or Controller of Examinations, Vice-Chancellor may through a committee constituted under the Act conduct the process for her recommendation to the Syndicate. The above provision of law reflects the procedural mechanism for initiating the appointment of key administrative officers, including the Registrar. It authorizes the Vice-Chancellor to constitute a committee under the relevant provisions of the Act, 2010 to conduct the selection process and recommend a suitable candidate to the Syndicate for appointment. This provision governs the manner of initiating and conducting the appointment process. Accordingly, the committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor was legally competent to make recommendations for the appointment of Registrar to the Vice Chancellor, and as per Section 14(1) of the Act, 2010, the Syndicate is empowered to appoint a Registrar on the recommendation of the Vice Chancellor, subject to the terms and conditions as may be prescribed. 16.
In view of the above, it becomes clear that while the process for recommending a suitable candidate was validly initiated by the duly constituted Search Committee, the final appointment of the Registrar, under Section 14(1) of the Act, 2010, is subject to the terms and conditions as may be prescribed. The expression prescribed, has been defined in Section 2(n) of the Act, 2010, which refers to the terms set out in the rules, statutes, or regulations framed under the Act. It was the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that since the prescribed rules for the appointment of Registrar are available in the Statutes, 2015 and Act, 2010, to refer the matter back to Search Committee in-fact shows mala fide of the Syndicate. In this context, Section 31(2)(i) of the Act, 2010 expressly empowers the Syndicate to make or recommend statutes pertaining to the scales of pay, method of recruitment, and other terms and conditions of service of officers. 17. Section 20 of the Act, 2010 designates the Syndicate as the executive body of the University. In legal terms, this confers both administrative authority and responsibility for the overall governance of the Institution. Section 20(1) of the Act, 2010 provides that the Syndicate shall, take effective measures subject to the provisions of this Act and statutes meaning thereby the Syndicate must exercise its powers within the framework provided by law. It cannot act arbitrarily or ultra vires (beyond its powers), but enjoys broad discretion in areas not specifically restricted. Further, the term take effective measures imposes a positive legal duty on the Syndicate to ensure, quality in teaching and research, advancement of technological development, encouragement of academic publications and general improvement in academic…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.