1999 PLP 16 (PLC)

In brief, the case of the petitioners in this Constitutional petition is that the petitioners have completed training with the respondent‑Company under a scheme known as Trainee Management Scheme and that after successful completion of the training, the petitioners are to be granted regular service as Assistant Engineer/Executive in Grade‑II but for motives other than clean, the respondent‑Company is not absorbing the petitioners in the regular service. In this connection the allegation seems to be that under pressure of Collective Bargaining Agent, number of posts have been agreed to be filled up on the recommendation of the Collective Bargaining Agent which is illegal. Possibly in the same line it is urged, that because provision of gas is an essential service, the Government be directed to declare the service as essential under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. The idea seems to be that once an order under section 3 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, is made, there will be a prohibition on union activity and the petitioners feel that once the union is excluded, their chances of employment with the respondent‑Company will improve. The respondent‑Company was directed to file report and parawise comments to this petition. The Company has done it and is also represented through counsel in these proceedings. Although technically the case has not been admitted but because the respondents have been heard at preliminary stage, the case is being finally disposed of.

2. In the report/written comments, number of legal objections including maintainability of the petition have been taken. Essentially the objection is that the training was imparted to the petitioners under a contract, which, does not provide for automatic employment after completion of training. The further argument is that even if the contract did provide for service, writ petition to enforce a contractual right is not maintainable. On facts, it is urged that the Company is in the process of reviewing its job requirements and as and when a thorough survey/enquiry has beer, conducted, the available posts will be duly advertised as required in the Service Regulations and the petitioners will have full chance to apply and contest for the jobs.

3. During the course of hearing, main emphasis of Dr. A. Basit, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners has been to show, from documents permitted to be produced/referred to that number of jobs are in fact available and there is no truth in the claim made to the written comments that the availability of posts is being surveyed. He has argued that once the petitioners have successfully completed the training, they legitimately expect to be given the job by the respondent‑Company. It has been suggested that denial of the respondent‑Company is not bona fide.

4. Mr. Saleem Baig, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent Company, on the other hand, has denied the immediate availability of jobs and has reiterated the stance that the Company is re‑appraising the future requirements of jobs and has maintained that the company has a right to do so. He has placed on record the letter addressed to him by the Company dated 16‑12‑1997. The contents of which are reproduced: "Please refer to your telephonic conversation with our Deputy Chief Personnel Officer, Mr. Zahid Saeed, of today iii connection with the abovecited writ petition. " The Management Trainees Scheme was introduced by the Company to impart on job training to selected post‑graduates of the country. The contract of training was for a fixed period of two years, which did not contain any provision for extension or guarantee to permanent absorption in the Company's regular employment. The Company is in the process of evaluating its manpower requirements. Any vacancies determined as a result of the study, shall be filled by way of open merit. According to Executive Service Rules of the Company, recruitment in the executive cadre can only be made after press advertisement. It may kindly be noted that the Management Trainees who have completed their training in the Company or are going to complete their 2 years' satisfactory training shall be eligible to apply and compete for the advertised positions commensurate with their qualification and experience: "As advised ‑by the Board of Directors in its 258th meeting held on 24‑10‑1997, the Company is also setting up planning/counselling cells to provide guidance and assistance to the Management Trainees in securing gainful employments. " Mr. Saleem Baig, Advocate, has in addition referred to large number of precedent cases to sustain the plea that the petition in the circumstances is not maintainable.

5. The question of amenability of the respondent‑Company to the writ jurisdiction of this Court may not be examined in-depth although learned counsel for the respondent‑Company has cited case‑law to show that the Company cannot be said to be a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or of a Province. For the purposes of disposal of this petition all that has to be seen is whether the petitioners have a right, even in the lose sense, which this Court is required to enforce under Article 199 of the Constitution. Undisputed facts are that under an agreement with the Company, the petitioners have completed a training course. The agreement itself does not provide that after completion of training the petitioners will be entitled to any job. The perusal of the relevant provisions shows that no such assurance or promise is extended to the trainees. The jobs have to be advertised and filled up on open merit. This is so provided in the regulations of the Company itself. The jobs have to be filled up by the Company in accordance with its own exigency. This Court can hardly be the best Judge of such requirements and exigencies. In my view, it would not be a proper exercise to survey the documents and to give a finding whether the respondent‑Company has vacancies and if so, how many and of what category and further when these vacancies are to be filled up. Particularly so because there is no assurance extended to the petitioners at the time when the petitioners opted for training. As and when the jobs are advertised, it is but natural that the persons duly qualified and having the added advantages of training, like the petitioners, will have relatively better chance of competing. The principle of legitimate expectancy, even if attracted, does not further the case of the petitioners. As noted, the petitioners can expect to put up better competition in open merit, on the strength of the training and that can be the only legitimate expectancy.

6. This Court has taken due notice of the statement of respondent‑Company as incorporated in its letter dated 16‑12‑1997 addressed to its learned counsel and which has been reproduced above. It is expected that after evaluating its manpower requirements, the vacancies shall be duly tilled up by way of open merit, strictly in accordance with regulations. It is also expected that due recognition shall be given to the successful completion of training by the petitioners.

7. For the abovenoted reasons and with the above observation, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./A‑303/L Petition dismissed.