P L D 2007 Lahore 458 (PLP)

SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.

Professor Maksud-.ul-Hassan Bukhari, respondent No.5, is the Principal, Government M.A.O., College Lahore who on attaining the age of superannuation had retired on 31-3-2004 but was re-employed on contract basis for a period of two years by order of the Governor of the Punjab vide notification dated 13-5-2004. His tenure was further extended by means of notification dated 8-5-2006 and the extended' term is to expire on 30-3-2007. This petition has been filed by the petitioners who are associate professors in the same college assailing the extended period of his re-employment as per the notification dated 8-5-2006 and further seek a restraint order that he should not be given further extension.

2. Report and parawise comments have been filed by the official respondents (respondents No.1 to 4) whereby a justification is sought to be made for his re-employment which according to the respondents was "keeping in view his contribution towards uplift and improvement of Government M.A.O. college, Lahore." The locus standi of the petitioners in maintaining the petition has also been assailed; the bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is also being invoked. In the reply filed by respondent No.5 he also highlights his achievements and contribution in the field of education including that he had been conferred (Azaz-i-Fazilat) by the President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the award of `Best Principal Award' was bestowed upon him by the City District Government, Lahore.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that re-employment of respondent No.5 was violative of the re-employment policy. Reference in this context has been made to the policy guidelines about re-employment of retired government servants as circulated through SRO.1-10-1/2003, dated 16-6-2003. He relies upon Pakistan Tobacco Board and another v. Tahir Raza and others 2007 SCMR 97 to contend that such an appointment should be declared as without lawful authority. It is further contended by him that there is a move for further extension of his contract/re-employment. The learned Additional Advocate-General Punjab as also the learned counsel for respondent No.5 take exception to the stance of the petitioners, their locus standi and contend that the Government had in its lawful exercise of power re-employed respondent No.5 for his services and contribution in the uplifting of the Institution. It is stated by the learned Law Officer that the competent authority in the matter has yet to take a decision as to further re-employment of respondent No.5 for which no grievance can be entertained at this stage.

4. Since the first re-employment notification dated 13-5-2004 has lived its life and is not even in question nothing need to be dilated upon about the same. So far as notification dated 8-5-2006 is concerned, the same reads as under:

"In continuation of the Department's notification of even number dated 13-5-2004, the period of contractual appointment of Mr. Maqsood-ul-Hassan Bukhari (BS-20/Education Department), as Principal, Government MAO College, Lahore, is hereby extended with effect from 13-5-2006 to 30-3-2007, on existing terms and conditions, in relaxation of the provisions of Re-employment Policy of the Government of the Punjab." It is apparent from the perusal of this notification that the period of contractual appointment was extended up to 30-3-2007 "in relaxation of Re-employment Policy of the Government of the Punjab". Such an authority and power of the government to relax the provisions of Re-employment Policy has not been questioned rather paragraph 9 of the petition concedes the position that the competent authority had got the power to relax the policy/rules. The stance of the Government and justification for its order of extension is the contribution of respondent No.5 to the Institution who undeniably was conferred (Azaz-i-Fazilat) in the field of education by the President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and a certificate of distinction for outstanding performance was awarded to him by the City District Government, Lahore. There prima facie appear a justification for availing the services of respondent No.5 in the said Institution. The facts and circumstances of the reported precedent i.e. (Pakistan Tobacco Board and another v. Tahir Raza and others 2007 SCMR 97 were peculiar inasmuch as re-employment of Khan Faraz, Secretary, Pakistan Tobacco Board had been- assailed on the ground that "under the relevant rules the authority competent for re-employment of petitioner No.2 (Khan Faraz) was the President of Pakistan and that the recommendation of the Chairman of the Board for re-employment of petitioner No.2" was illegal. The petition assailing his re-employment was allowed by the High Court in that context and petition for leave was declined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. In the said case the tenure of Khan Faraz was likely to expire on 8-10-2006 and it was urged that he may be allowed to complete the same. Such a request was not allowed observing that "such a course was adopted by the learned Lahore High Court in the case of A.R. Azar Supra (PLD 1958 (W.P.) Lahore

185. In the said case, while the writ petition was decided on 22-11-1956 the extended tenure of the officer was to expire on 30-11-1956 (i.e. after 8 days). However, in this case, a period of four months is still there for completion of the extended tenure of the petitioner No.2. Further, the writ petition was filed by Mushtaq Ahmad and Tahir Raza but before this Court only Tahir Raza, has been impleaded. Moreover even Tahir Raza, is not before this Court at this stage. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, we are not inclined to allow the request made." Incidentally in this case the extended term of respondent No.5'is likely to expire on 30-3-2007 whereas today is 20-3-2007 i.e. a period of almost 10 days. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the exercise of discretion and jurisdiction by the Governor of the Province who extended the period of contractual appointment of respondent No.5 till 30-3-2007.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that another extension of contractual appointment of respondent No.5 is in process is unfounded and based upon assumption. It may be observed that it has been clearly stated on behalf of the official respondents that "the case will be dealt with in accordance with existing law, rules and re-employment policy by the Competent Authority". In view of such a stance it cannot be assumed at this stage that respondent No.5 will necessarily be given further extension. The apprehension of the petitioners at this stage qua the same is premature and no interference can be made by this Court on mere conjecture sand assumptions. For the reasons mentioned above the petition fails which is dismissed accordingly. M.H./M-172/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.