Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Dr. MUHAMMAD SALEEM VS Respondent: UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR through Vice-ChancellorHonorable Justice Shahji Rahman KhanSaid Rahman,Wasimuddin Khattak
2010 P L C (C
2010 P L C (C.S.) 935
[Peshawar High Court]
Before Shah Jehan Khan and Shahji Rehman Khan, JJ
Dr. MUHAMMAD SALEEM
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR through Vice-Chancellor and 2 others
Writ Petition No.599 of 2008, decided on 21st May, 2009.
(a) North-West Frontier Province Civil Servants Act (XVIII of 1973)---
----S. 5---University of Peshawar Act (II of 1974), S.21(3)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Appointment---Withdrawal of---Petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer on ad hoc basis in Arabic Department in the University---Later on when post of Associate Professor was advertised, the petitioner having the required qualifications applied for the same and was recommended by the Selection Board of the University in its meeting---In meeting of the Syndicate of the University, the petitioner got approved his appointment as Associate Professor and appointment order in his favour was issued, however, after the period of eight months, his appointment as Associate Professor was withdrawn---Reason for such withdrawal as furnished by the authorities in their comments was that because of the break up of quorum in the meeting of Syndicate, all decisions taken were null and void ab initio, without lawful authority and not based on proper interpretation of the quorum of the Syndicate, provided under S.21(3) of the University of Peshawar Act, 1974---Validity---Total number of the Syndicate being 21, required quorum according to S.21(3) of University of Peshawar Act, 1974 should be 11--Appointment order of petitioner was approved by the Syndicate when it was short of the quorum by one member---In the subsequent meeting of the Syndicate, it was rightly, properly and legally declared null and void and without lawful authority and said appointment order was rightly withdrawn---Order of withdrawal could not be interfered with by the High Court in the extraordinary, equitable, discretionary constitutional jurisdiction.
PLD 1983 Pesh. 123 and 2004 YLR 1979 ref.
(b) Interpretation of statutes---
----Interpretation should be natural, appropriate and simple; and should give the words their ordinary meaning, it should be consistent with the intention of legislature and should help the administration of justice and should not offend the common sense or lead to ridiculous consequences.
Said Rahman for Petitioner.
Wasimuddin Khattak for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 21st May, 2009.
JUDGMENT
SHAHJI RAHMAN KHAN, J.---Petitioner in this Constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 has impugned order bearing No.481/Estt. Dated 26-2-2008 whereby his appointment as Associate Professor Department of Arabic in BPS-20 was withdrawn.
2. Brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this petition are that petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer on ad hoc basis in Arabic Department in Peshawar University on 30-9-1992. Later on the post of Associate Professor was advertised in the Newspaper and the petitioner having the required qualification applied for the same and was recommended by the Selection Board of the University in its meeting held on 21-2-2007 and in the 397th meeting of the Syndicate of the Peshawar University held on 13th June, 23rd July and 23rd August, 2007 got approved his appointment as Associate Professor and appointment order in his favour bearing No.2634 dated 23-8-2007 was issued. But after the period of eight months when the respondents vide the impugned 431/Estt. dated 26-2-2008 referred to above withdrew his appointment as Associate Professor. Hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contended that when the appointment order dated 23-8-2007 was issued in favour of the petitioner, the same could not have been withdrawn vide the impugned order dated 26-2-2008 and the reasons furnished by the respondents in their comments that because of the break up of quorum in the meeting of Syndicate all decisions taken in the 4th session of 397th meeting held on 23rd August, 2004 were null and void ab initio is without lawful authority and not based on proper interpretation of quorum of the Syndicate provided under section 21(3) of the University of Peshawar Act, 1974. The decision taken by the Syndicate in the aforesaid meeting in presence of ten out of twenty one members of the Syndicate was just, proper and legal and the impugned order dated 26-2-2008 be recalled and reversed. Reliance was placed on PLD 1983 Peshawar 123 and 2004 YLR page 1979.
4. As against that, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the quorum of the meeting of the Syndicate under section 21(3) of the Peshawar University Act, 1974 is one-half of the Total Number of the members of the Syndicate. Since the total number of the Syndicate is twenty one, therefore, the required number would be eleven and the decision taken by ten members of the Syndicate is illegal, wrong and violative of the statutory provision, therefore, the impugned order was justified and lawfully taken in the subsequent meeting of the Syndicate.
5. Before attending to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be instructive to reproduce the relevant provision herein below:-
"21.(1)
(2) ..
(3) The quorum for a meeting of the Syndicate shall be one half of the total number of Members, a Fraction being counted as one."
6. Perusal of the afore-said provision of law would reveal in unequivocal terms that the Quorum of the meeting of the Syndicate is one half of the Total Number of the Syndicate. Admittedly, the total number of the Syndicate is 21, therefore, the required quorum would be and should be 11 (eleven). As the appointment order of the petitioner bearing endorsement No.2634/Estt dated 23-8-2007 was approved by the Syndicate when it was short of the quorum by one member, therefore, in the subsequent meeting of the Syndicate held on 20-10-2007 it was rightly, properly and legally declared null and void and without lawful authority and the impugned order based on approval of Syndicate when it was short of quorum was rightly withdrawn in perfect justification of the Statute of the University Act, 1974. Therefore, in the writ jurisdiction of this Court it cannot be and should not be interfered with as the same has been issued in letter and spirit of the statutory provision of law. Because the general principles of interpreting statutes is that the interpretation should be natural, appropriate and simple and should give the words their ordinary meaning. It should be consistent with the intention of legislature and should help the administration of justice. It should not offend the common sense. It should not lead to ridiculous consequences.
7. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner being distinguishable for their peculiar facts are not relevant for the disposal of this writ petition.
8. In view of what has been discussed above, we see no reason muchless plausible to interfere with the impugned Order No.481/Estt. dated 26-2-2008 in the extraordinary, equitable, discretionary, constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, finding no merit or substance in this writ petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. However, as the impugned order was issued against the petitioner on technical ground, therefore, in the interest of justice, the respondents are directed to re-consider the case .of the petitioner in the next meeting of the Syndicate to be held within two months.
H.B.T./138/P Petition dismissed.