2009 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.

Through this petition, the petitioner has called in question letter dated 27-12-2006 issued by the Registrar, University of Karachi, whereby his services were terminated and has ultimately prayed that his termination be declared illegal and petitioner be treated in service. The facts, relevant for deciding the instant petition, are that the petitioner on 22-8-2003 was appointed as Assistant Controller (Computerization) by the Vice-Chancellor, University of Karachi, while exercising powers under section 14 of the University of Karachi Act, 1972 on ad hoc basis till meeting of Selection Board. It appears that the post of Assistant Controller was advertised in June, 2004 the meeting of Selection Board, consequently, took place on June 16 and 17 of 2006 and a total number of 39 candidates including the petitioner appeared before the Selection Board who after interviewing all of them recommended the appointment of four out of 39 candidates against the available posts. Unfortunately, the petitioner was not recommended and consequently his services were terminated through the letter, impugned. The record reflects that the petitioner, thereafter, made various representations and has, ultimately, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Registrar of the University participated in the proceedings of Selection Board as well as the Syndicate as a member and therefore composition of the Selection Board as well as Syndicate was in violation of clause 6(b) and 22 of the University of Karachi Code. Consequently, the proceedings of the Selection Board as well as Syndicate were of no consequence and' his termination by the Syndicate on the ground of having not been recommended by the Selection Board could not sustain and, therefore, is liable to be set aside. It was further contended that for this very reason the constitution of Selection Board for the previous year was declared illegal by the Syndicate. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has invited our attention to the minutes of Selection Board annexed to the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondent-University of Karachi and has contended that the constitution of Board as well as Syndicate was strictly in accordance with law and the Registrar being Secretary of the Board as well as Syndicate has only recommended some minutes of the meeting and has neither interviewed any candidate nor awarded any marks to them. Explaining the position of Selection Board for the previous year, learned counsel has submitted that since Pro-Vice Chancellor, had participated in the proceedings of the Selection Board as a Member, therefore the Syndicate declared the proceedings in violation of clause 6(b) of the Code. We have examined the minutes of the Selection Board and find that the meeting was chaired by the Vice-Chancellor and four other members, as required under clause 6(b) of The First Statute framed under section 28 of the University of Karachi Act, 1972. The name of the Registrar does not appear in the list of members, likewise, the minutes of the Syndicate depict the similar position and therefore we see no reason to disagree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the Registrar participated as Secretary to the Board only for the purpose of recording the minutes. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused to him on account of such attendance. It is also important to record that the petitioner had made a representation on 13-3-2007 followed by reminders dated 14-4-2007 and 28-7-2007 seeking his reinstatement, the petitioner though challenged the procedure adopted by the Selection Board as well as Syndicate but did not challenge their constitution. On this count, the plea appears to be an after-thought and therefore is rejected. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a number of ad hoc employees of the year, 1999 who were declared unsuitable by the Selection Board were appointed by the, Syndicate in the year, 2006 on humanitarian ground on the recommendation of the Selection Board whereas the request of the petitioner for appointment. On such account was turned down and therefore, the petitioner was account discriminated in terms of principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of PIAC v. Shahzad Farooq Malik 2004 SCMR

158. In response, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the services of few employees of the respondents who were appointed on ad hoc basis in the year, 1999 were regularized by the Syndicate in the year, 2006 on the recommendation of Selection Board on compassionate ground taking in view their long satisfactory services and such treatment was for one time only and was not be treated as precedent. It was contended that neither the case of the petitioner fell in that category nor he had rendered services for such a long time to claim treatment alike. It is well-settled principle of law by now that an ad hoc employee acquires no vested right to remain in service and his services are liable to be terminated the moment a regular appointee is chosen therefore the termination of his services after the selection of regular appointees is unexceptionable and unquestionable. As to the claim of discrimination, as pleaded by the petitioner, we are afraid that the petitioner cannot claim discrimination against as treatment which even, according to him was not in accordance with law. In our opinion the appointments on compassionate ground have hardly any legal justification and if called in question, in appropriate -proceedings, may not be found strictly in accordance with law, therefore no discrimination on the basis bf such statement can be claimed. As to the judgment of the apex Court in the case of PIAC (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in our view it does not help the case of the petitioner from any angle. The respondents in the said case along with other employees were appointed in the corporation and their appointments were, subsequently, confirmed. On change of regime, the corporation' took "U" turn and asserted the appointment of the respondents in violation of the Rules and Regulations and ultimately terminated their services. In this background it was held, by the Honourable 'Supreme Court that the respondents were discriminated as other employees who were similarly appointed were given a different treatment and their services were not terminated. In the instant case, the petitioner an ad hoc employee has failed to point out any right acquired or that any of the 39 candidates who appeared along with him were given treatment different than one given to the petitioner in order to claim discrimination. These are the reasons for the short order dated 24-10-2007 by which this petition was dismissed. H.B.T./B-24/K Petition dismissed.