2019 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

JAWAD HASSAN, J.

Through the instant Constitutional petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the "Constitution"), the Petitioner has challenged the validity of the impugned order dated 27.04.2018 whereby her services have been terminated by the Respondent No.3. The Petitioner also seeks her reinstatement into service with all back benefits.

2. The facts tersely revealed from the petition are that the Petitioner was appointed against the post of SESE (Arts) vide order dated 01.03.2018 in the Respondents Department on contract basis for a period of five years. All of a sudden the Petitioner was served with a letter of termination of service/impugned order. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner inter alia contended that the Petitioner was fully qualified and performing her duties with due diligence but all of a sudden she was terminated without affording any opportunity of personal hearing; that the impugned order has been passed arbitrarily which is against the principle of natural justice; that the contract of the Petitioner has been terminated prior to its expiry, as such mala fide on the part of the Respondents is explicit. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in support of his contentions has placed reliance on the case titled Zulqarnain and 2 others v. Surbuland Khan and another (2004 SCMR 1084) and Messrs ARK Industrial Management Ltd. v. Messrs Habib Bank Limited (PLD 1991 Supreme Court 976).

4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer appeared along with original record and vehemently controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the petition on the grounds that the Petitioner was terminated as per the terms and conditions of her contract employment which she accepted at the time of joining and now she cannot deviate from the same; that the Petitioner being contractual employee has no vested right of regular appointment and can be terminated at any stage as per the employment agreement; that this petition is not maintainable against a contractual employment in view of plethora of judgments of the apex Court.

5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record available with this petition.

6. The main grievance of the Petitioner is that she was appointed on contract basis for a period of five years on 01.03.2018 but she was terminated prior to the expiry of her contract period without any show cause notice or affording personal hearing. Admittedly, the Petitioner was appointed on purely contract basis in the Respondents/Department. The Petitioner after accepting all the terms and conditions of her contract employment submitted her joining report. The specific terms in the employment contract, containing certain terms and conditions, are inserted which explicitly reveal that initially this offer of appointment is only for a period of five years whereas, the specific clause dealing with the controversy involved is Clause-8 which reflects that the Petitioner can be terminated if falls in the following grounds which reads as under: i. Misconduct. ii. Willful absence from duty for 30 days or more. iii. Financial embezzlement. iv. In-efficiency and non delivery of quality education to the students. v. Unsuccessful to complete training. vi. If degree (s)/certificate (s) are found bogus. vii. On one month notice or payment of One Month Salary in lieu thereof by either side without assigning any reason.

7. The Respondents have invoked clause-8(ii)(v)(vi), to terminate the services of the Petitioner. The impugned order clearly depicts that the Petitioner remain absent from duty w.e.f. 11.04.2018. It also reveals that the Petitioner did not complete her training course which was mandatory as per the terms and conditions of her contract employment and thirdly that the Petitioner made tampering in the marks obtained by her in all the qualification certificates. The impugned order also reveals that as per Policy 2017-18 the prescribed qualification for the post of SESE (Arts) is Master Degree in (Urdu, English, Pak Studies, Psychology, Islamiat, Political Science, History, Geography, Home Economics, Statistics and Education) but the Petitioner also made tampering by changing the sentence of BS (Hons) Economics into BS (Hons) Home Economics just to show her qualification according to the eligibility criteria.

8. Moreover, the impugned order show that after the above referred situation, the Respondents issued four successive show cause cum-personal hearing notices dated 22.03.2018, 26.03.2018, 03.04.2018 and 12.04.2018 to the Petitioner to afford her personal hearing along with written defence but she did not even bother to attend the Office of the respondents on the date fixed. In view of the same, the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was condemned unheard and the impugned order was passed against the principle of natural justice is not instructive. It is an established principle that where employment is on contract, there is a relationship of master and servant and in such like cases the Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is not maintainable. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Lt. Col. Rtd. Aamir Rauf v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/o Defence and 3 others (2011 PLC (C.S.) 654) and Nadeem Ahmed v. Pakistan State Oil Company Limited and another (2005 PLC (C.S.) 1447. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case titled Dr. Abid Ali v. Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab and 3 others (2017 PLC (C.S.). 488) has held that the employee, after accepting terms and conditions of his contract employment had submitted his joining report. Service of such employee could be terminated without assigning any reason. Employee had no right to claim extension in his contract period as a vested right. Behaviour of employee remained unsatisfactory towards his superior which resulted into his termination. In Case titled Mubashar Majeed v. Province of Punjab and 3 others (2017 PLC (C.S.) 940) the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has also held that employee could not claim extension of the contract as a matter of right rather it was the prerogative of the competent authority either to dispense with services of such employee or continue with the same by tending the contract. The judgments cited upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner cannot be relied upon as each and every case has its own facts and circumstances and therefore, distinguishable to the case in hand.

11. In view of above, I see no illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order. Consequently, the instant petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ZC/I-12/L Petition dismissed.