2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Muhammad Azam Ishtiaq petitioner has filed this writ petition to issue a direction against the respondents to allow him to join service in their department in view of the appointment letter dated 1‑7‑1996 (Annexure‑B) whereby he was selected as Management Trainee under the said scheme. 2.Report and parawise comments were called from respondents Nos.2 and 3 vide order dated 18‑12‑1996.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he was B.Sc. (Engineering in Petroleum) and had been selected as Management Trainee under the said scheme and he was not being allowed to join service on the ground that he had become overage by 10 months and 5 days above the requisite age i.e. 30 years when he presented himself for joining the job. In the Matriculation Certificate issued by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, his date of birth was mentioned as 20‑9‑1965 instead of his actual date of Birth as 16‑12‑1966. He moved the Board and get the date of birth corrected accordingly, showing it as 16‑12‑1966 after adopting proper procedure and he submitted the same to the respondents alleging that he was not overage. However, he was not allowed to join the service and such refusal was unlawful.

4. In parawise comments the respondents alleged that, firstly, the petitioner got the correction done in a fake manner; and that secondly even at the time of submission of the Matriculation Certificate showing date of birth as 16‑12‑1966, he had become overage and for that reason he was not allowed to join the service.

5. The rejoinder to the report of the respondents was also submitted by the petitioner, wherein the petitioner controverted the pleas put forth by the respondents.

6. Without going into the merits of the case, the legal objection was raised to the effect that the writ petition does not lie in view of the fact that respondent is a Company Limited by shares, as proved within the framework of Memorandum and Articles of Association and that the terms and conditions of its employees were not governed by any statute and the relationship amongst them is that of Master and Servant. In support of the above, the reliance has been placed on the decision made on 16‑1‑1997 in Writ Petition No. 1239 of 1997, involving the same point brought against the very Respondent Company. My learned brother K.N. Bhandari, J. has observed therein as follows "Learned counsel has been questioned to show as to how this petition is maintainable because the service of the petitioner with respondent No.2 is not governed by any Statute. Respondent No.2 is a limited company and it has no statutory service rules. Even in case of University of the Punjab, Lahore and others v. Ch. Sardar? Ali (1992 SCMR 1093), the Supreme Court has held that the employment with such institution is non‑statutory one and writ is not maintainable. In the circumstances, this petition is dismissed in limine." , In case Lt. Col. Shujauddin Ahmad v. Oil & Gas Development Corporation (1971 SCMR 566), also relied upon; it is laid down as follows:‑‑ "We are unable to agree with this contention. The provisions of the statutes, under which the respondent‑Corporation, the East Pakistan Industrial Corporation and other statutory bodies had been created in Pakistan, are not medically different. There too the Government holds the bulk shares, appoints a Managing Director and Chairman of the Board, audits the account of the statutory Corporation through its own appointed Auditors and has the power to direct those Corporations to carry out its instructions. The consistent view of this Court hithertofore has been? that the employees of such statutory Corporations do not acquire the status of the Government servants nor are the guarantees given by the Constitution applicable in their case. The High Court was, therefore, in our view, right in vacating the order of the interim injunction for according to the law of master and servant, a contract of service, cannot be specially enforced. " In view of the above discussion, I come to the conclusion that this writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed in limine. Q. M. H. /M. A. K./M.661/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.