2021 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SAHIBZADA ASADULLAH, J.

Through this common judgment, we propose to decide the instant writ petitions and the following connect writ petitioners, as identical question of law and fact is involved therein. i. Writ Petition No. 638-D/2020 Rozi Khan v. Gomal University, D.I. Khan through Chancellor and others. ii. Writ Petition No. 640-D/2020 Ghulam Shabbir v. Gomal University, D.I. Khan through Chancellor and others. iii. Writ Petition No. 641-D/2020 Riaz Baloch v. Gomal University, D.I. Khan through Chancellor and others. iv. Writ Petition No. 642-D/2020 Jamshed v. Gomal University, D.I. Khan through Chancellor and others. v. Writ Petition No. 643-D/2020 Abdul Rehman v Gomal University, D.I. Khan through Chancellor and others. vi. Writ Petition No. 644-D/2020 Muhammad Ikramullah v. Gomal University, D.I.Khan through Chancellor and others. vii. Writ Petition No. 645-D/2020 Khajo v. Gomal University, D.I. Khan through Chancellor and others. viii. Writ Petition No. 646-D/2020 Aurangzeb v. Gomal University, D.I. Khan through Chancellor and others.

2. The common facts in all these cases are that the petitioners seek issuance of directions to the respondents to act in accordance with Law, Rules, Policy and not to discriminate them in the matter of their regularization in service. It has also been found in almost all the cases that the services of these contract employees have been brought on budgetary sanctioned posts, but the petitioners have been kept on contract basis. The petitioners are still serving in the respondents' University. Grievance of the petitioner is that they despite having considerable length of service approached and requested the respondents by submitting application and representation to regularize their service but to no avail. They have further prayed to direct the respondents to regularize the services of petitioners with all back benefits.

3. On directions of this Court, the respondents submitted their para-wise comments.

4. Heard. Record perused.

5. Undoubtedly, the petitioners in all the writ petitions are the contractual employees of the respondents/University and they are still holding their respective positions in the same status and capacity. There is no denial to the fact that the petitioners are serving in the respondents University for a considerable period, however, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Universities Act, 2012 (as amended by the Act of 2016), governing the respondents/University and its employees does not provide any provision under which the petitioners could claim regularization as their vested right. The status of the contractual employees and their claim regarding regularization as a right cropped up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled "Pakistan Telecommunication Co. Ltd through Chairman v. Iqbal Nasir and others (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 132), which was dealt in the following way:- All the employees having entered into contract of service on 'the same or similar terms and condition having no vested right to seek regularization of their employment which is discretionary with the master. The master is well within his rights to retain or dispense with the service of an employees on the basis of satisfactory or otherwise performance. (emphasis supplied) In the above context, we find that contractual employees have no right to be regularized until there is a law provided to that effect and we are not confronted with any such legal preposition. The petitioners are contractual employees and they have to serve till the pleasure of their master and in case of non-regularization of their services, which according to them has not taken place, they cannot seek the regularization as of right.

6. In Suo Motu case regarding regularization of contract employees of Zakat Department as well as appointment of Chairman of Central Zakat Council (2013 SCMR 304), the Hon'ble apex Court while placing reliance on the judgment rendered in case titled "Government of Balochistan v. Zahida Kakar" (2005 SCMR 642), was pleased to lay down the law, that contract employees did not have a vested right for regular appointment.

7. The ratio laid down was followed in case titled "Lt. Col. Rtd. Sultan Zeb Khan v. Board of Governors Fazle Haq College, Mardan through Chairman and 05 others has held that:- "Contract of employment did not create any vested right in the appointee so as to make him entitled to be served with notice before termination of contract of his service."

8. In order to appreciate the matter, we read the appointment orders with the conditions provided. The petitioners while entering into service willfully surrendered to the terms provided, and despite the recruitment/appointment were made for fixed period with no claim of regularization the same was accepted with no hesitation. In their orders of appointment, it has specifically been mentioned that "their appointment is restricted for six months only and have no right/claim of regularization". The stance of the respondents/department is that the petitioners being contractual/fixed pay employees of the University can not be extended the benefit of regularization and they are bound to abide by the terms and conditions of their appointment orders.

9. The grant of extension in service is evidently a stopgap arrangement, petitioners, however, claimed right to be regularized. A brief reference to the facts may facilitate quick comprehension of the issue at hand. It is a common ground, and not disputed, that petitioners were appointed on fixed pay basis as contractual employees against class-IV posts in the Gomal University, D.I. Khan. There is no controversy that contract of the petitioners was extended from time to time. Before determining the substance and extent of the rights claimed herein, it is expedient to make reference to one of the core conditions of the letter of appointment, duly acknowledged and acquiesced by the petitioners, wherein it was categorically stated that 'Their appointment is restricted for six months only and have no right/claim of regularization and during fixed pay period their services will be liable to termination at any movement without their being served with any notice or with any reasons being assigned in connection therewith'.

10. The fundamental issue, which calls for determination, is the scope and extent of alleged rights, claimed through this petition, i.e. right to be regularized. It is borne out from the record that no process requiring advertisement of the posts, open competition, transparency in the process of appointment and appointments on merit through validly constituted selection committee was conducted by the respondents. It may not be out of place to mention here that right claimed by the petitioners is neither an absolute nor a vested right, which at best, in the facts and circumstances privy to this case, extends a right to claim regularization, in lieu of services rendered as contractual employees. The petitioners having been appointed on contract basis, there was no vested right to seek regularization in terms of settled principles of law as well as relevant provision of the University Act. In addition to above, the appointment orders of petitioners did not confer any right to seek regularization and the respondent/University reserved to itself the right to terminate the petitioners' services at any time/stage without serving any prior notice to that effect to them and the petitioners accepted such appointment accordingly.

11. It is trite that where a citizen seeks relief in constitutional jurisdiction he must point to a right stator or contractual which vests in him and has been denied in violation of the law. The petitioners have failed to point out any right to seek regularization on the basis of any constitutional guarantee or statuary law or instrument which may have been denied to them. Their terms and conditions of service were governed by their appointment orders and in our opinion the respondents within the parameters of their authority have rightly held that there was no right of regularization available to the petitioners. In this regard, while placing reliance on the judgment dated 29.4.2020 rendered in case titled "Owais Shams Durrani and others v. Vice Chancellor, Bacha Khan University, Charsadda and another, the Hon'ble apex Court held that petitioners cannot seek regularization on the basis of any constitutional guarantee or statutory law.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners has desperately failed in showing any provision of law under which the contractual employees/petitioners can be regularized. The case law relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioners, with utmost respect to the same, has no relevance to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand; thus, it does not render any assistance or help to the petitioners' case. Even otherwise, contractual employment, fixed pay and fixed salary employees have no right whatsoever to claim regularization or continuation in service by filing writ petition. In this respect, reliance is placed on 2013 SCMR

13. This Court is not inclined to entertain petitioners' request to extend exclusivity qua the purposes of considering them for appointment on regular basis.

13. For the above reasons supra, we have reached to an irresistible conclusion that contract employees and fixed salaries employees have no right to claim regularization as a vested right. Resultantly, this and the connected writ petitions are hereby dismissed. MQ/112/P Petition dismissed.