M.MUNEERHASSAN Versus CHANCELLOR,N.E.D.UNIVERSITYOFENGINEERINGANDTECHNOLOGY/GOVERNOROFSINDH,KARACHI
The appellant, the former Vice-Chancellor of the N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology, challenged the dismissal of his Constitution petition by the High Court, which had upheld his removal from office by the Chancellor prior to the expiration of his four-year term. The core legal question concerned whether the appellant's removal, effected during the Chancellor's pleasure, was legally sustainable given the statutory tenure, and whether the subsequent enactment of the Sindh Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1994, necessitated the abatement of the current proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the appellant, as an officer of the University, fell within the definition of a civil servant under the amended Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Consequently, pursuant to the abatement provisions introduced by the 1994 Amendment Act, the Court ruled that the pending appeal must abate, as the matter regarding the terms and conditions of service now falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sindh Service Tribunal. The principle established is that where statutory amendments retrospectively classify university employees as civil servants, pending litigation in higher courts regarding their service terms must abate in favor of the Service Tribunal.
- Does the Sindh Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1994, cause the abatement of pending litigation regarding the service terms of a university employee?
- Are employees of a university established by a provincial enactment considered civil servants for the purposes of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
- Section 27(1), N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology Act, 1977
- Section 26(1), N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology Act, 1977
- Section 2, Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973
- Section 3, Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973
- Section 3-E, Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973
- Section 3-F, Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973
- Sindh Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1994
1. SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑ ‑‑The appellant with the leave of the Court has challenged the order of the learned Judges of the Division Bench whereby his Constitution petition filed against the order passed by respondent No. 1 removing him from the post of Vice‑Chancellor was dismissed in limine.
2. By order dated 17‑11‑1991, respondent No. 1 appointed the appellant as Vice‑Chancellor of N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology for a term of 4 years as prescribed by section 27(1) of the N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The order recited that the appellant has been appointed as Vice‑Chancellor of the University with immediate effect for‑a period of 4 years during the pleasure of the Chancellor on usual terms and conditions. By a subsequent Notification, dated 17‑4‑1994 before the expiry of period of 4 years, respondent No. 1 ordered that the appellant will cease to hold office of the Vice-Chancellor with immediate effect. The appellant filed a Constitution petition challenging the legality of the order, but it was dismissed in limine by order dated 22‑8‑1994.
3. Leave was granted to consider that in cases where an employee holds office during the pleasure of the employer, can his appointment be terminated without notice and without showing any reasonable cause. The learned counsel for the parties have argued the matter. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the order was mala fide, arbitrary and illegal. It was further contended that a period of 4 years has been fixed by statute under section 27(1) of the Act and the pleasure of respondent No.1 is fettered and restricted, which cannot be exercised against rules and the principles of natural justice. According to Mr. Aziz A. Munshi, section 27 permits termination of employment of the appellant even before expiry of 4 years as he held office during the pleasure of the Chancellor. He further pointed out that the period of 4 years for which he had been appointed, has expired Mr R H Farooqi learned council for respondent No 2 contented that in view of amendment ? made by the Sindh Service tribunal (Amendment ) Act 1994 gazetted on 16- 1 ?1995 this appeal has abated . In ? section 2 of the Sindh Service Tribunal Act 1973, which defince Civil Servant ? the following new clause was inserted ;-
2. "(aa) 'Corporation' means a Corporation or Institution set up or established by a Provincial enactment."
3. In section 3, new subsections (3‑E) and (3‑F) were inserted, which read as follows:‑‑
4. "3‑E. Employee of a Corporation to be deemed civil servant.‑‑?Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, service or Corporation is hereby declared to be the service of the province and every person holding a post in the Corporation, not being a person who is on deputation to the Corporation shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be a civil servant.
5. 3‑F. Abatement of vending cases of an employee of the Corporation.‑‑‑All suits, appeals or applications relating to the terms and conditions of service of a person holding a post in a corporation pending in any Court immediately before the commencement of the Sindh Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1994, shall abate:
6. Provide that a party to such suit, appeal or application tray within ninety days of the commencement of the Amending Act prefer an appeal to the Tribunal established under, section 3."
7. By referring to these provisions, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the appellant is an officer of the University, which is a Corporation or Institution established by a Provincial enactment and in terms of subsection (3‑E), he shall be deemed to be a civil servant. The appeal, therefore, in terms of subsection (3‑F) shall stand abated. The learned counsel for the respondents 'state that for the purposes of Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the appellant is a civil servant and an officer of the University under section 26(1) of the Act and the dispute which is subject‑matter of this appeal relates to terms and conditions of service of the appellant. On query the appellant stated that he has already filed an appeal before the Sindh Service Tribunal. In these circumstances, the appeal has abated, which is dismissed accordingly. The appeal of the appellant pending before the Sindh Service Tribunal shall be decided according to law.
8. A.A./M‑3252/S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.