Prof. Dr. M. MUNEER HASSAN vs THE CHANCELLOR, N.E.D. UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY_GOVERNOR OF SINDH, KARACHI and another
This civil appeal challenges an order of the High Court dismissing the appellant's Constitution petition against his removal from the post of Vice-Chancellor of N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology before the expiry of his four-year term. The appellant was appointed to hold office during the pleasure of the Chancellor. During the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court, amendments were introduced via the Sindh Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1994, which deemed employees of corporations established by provincial enactments to be civil servants and provided for the abatement of all pending suits, appeals, or applications relating to their terms and conditions of service. The Supreme Court examined the effect of these statutory amendments and held that the appellant, as an officer of the University, fell within the definition of a civil servant under the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973, thereby causing the pending appeal to abate. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, leaving the appellant to pursue his remedy before the Sindh Service Tribunal.
- Whether an employee holding office during the pleasure of the employer can have his appointment terminated before the expiry of the statutory term?
- Do pending appeals relating to the terms and conditions of service of a university employee abate upon the enactment of the Sindh Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1994?
- Is an officer of a university established by a provincial enactment deemed to be a civil servant under the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
- Section 27(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 26(1), N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology Act, 1977
- Sindh Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1994
' 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 limited.
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 limited 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 period of 4 years for which he had been appointed, has expired. Mr. R.H. Farooqi, learned counsel for respondent No,2 contended that in view of amendment made by the Sindh Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1994, gazetted on 16-1-1995, this appeal has abated. In section 2 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973, which defines "civil servant", the following new clause was inserted:- "(aa) 'Corporation' means a Corporation or Institution set up or established by a Provincial enactment."
' In section 3, new subsections (3-E) and (3-F) were inserted, which read as follows:-- "3-E. Employee of a Corporation to be deemed civil servant.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, service od 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.
3-F. Abatement of pending 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: ' Provided that a party to such suit, appeal or application may within ninety days of the commencement of the Amending Act prefer an appeal to the Tribunal established under section 3."
' 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 abatedThe 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.