2026 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

KHALID ISHAQ, J.

By the dint of this Constitutional Petition, the petitioner has called into question order dated 27.04.2011 ("Impugned Order") issued by respondent No.2, whereby the contractual services of the petitioner have been terminated with immediate effect in terms of Clause-A of his appointment letter dated 26.11.2009.

2. Briefly, the petitioner joined service as Sub-Divisional Officer in C&W Department, Government of Punjab in the year 1973 and after serving for 36 years, he retired on 30.11.2009 as Chief Engineer. In pursuance of advertisement dated 07.09.2009, the petitioner applied for the post of Advisor (Projects and Planning) in TEVTA and was subsequently selected. The petitioner avers that owing to the directions issued by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Suo Motu case No.24/2010, the Attorney General for Pakistan advised the Provincial Governments to examine the cases pertaining to re-employment of civil servants after their retirements; accordingly, Government of the Punjab constituted a committee to review all such appointments. A report was submitted by TEVTA to the said committee supporting their decision, but the committee expressing its reservations qua appointment of the petitioner, directed the respondent No.3 to terminate the petitioner's service contract. In compliance of the said direction, the respondent No.3 proceeded to pass the Impugned Order. Hence this Constitutional Petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Impugned Order is not only arbitrary but has been passed against the law as the petitioner had not earlier served in TEVTA, therefore, his contractual employment did not amount to 're-employment' after retirement; further submits that the committee constituted by Government of Punjab was directed to review all the re-employments having been made against the law and applicable rules; adds that the petitioner was appointed in TEVTA after fulfillment of all codal formalities as set out in the re-employment policy of Government of the Punjab; adds that the post of Advisor was not reserved for departmental promotion and was filled through open merit, thus, the petitioner's appointment did not deprive any TEVTA employee(s) of their right to promotion; further adds that the committee, constituted by Government of Punjab through Services and General Administration Department (S&GAD), had no authority to direct TEVTA for termination of the petitioner's contract of employment; argues that in several other departments, similarly placed persons have been retained by the respective departments, while the petitioner has been dealt with in an arbitrary, discriminatory and unlawful manner; further argues that the order is based on mala fide and is coram non-judice being passed on the direction of an incompetent authority; lastly submits that the petitioner was neither provided an opportunity of hearing nor any notice was ever served upon him, which action violates the basic principles of administration of justice and fundamental rights of the petitioner as the petitioner has been condemned unheard. Placed reliance on judgments reported as Nadeem Asghar Nadeem and others v. Province of Punjab and others (2016 PLC (C.S.) 155), Faisal Sultan v. E.D.O. (Education) and others (2011 PLC (C.S.) 419), Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. P.I.A.C. and another (1994 SCMR 2232), Pakistan, through Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukh (PLD 1969 SC 407), Government of West Pakistan and another v. Begum Agha; Abdul Karim Shorish Kashmiri (PLD 1969 SC 14), Pakistan through Ministry of Finance Economic Affairs and another v. FECTO BelarusTractors Ltd. (PLD 2002 SC 208).

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-TEVTA submits that the very appointment of the petitioner is based on misrepresentation and concealment of facts as at the time of advertisement i.e. 09.09.2009 and interviews, which were scheduled and held on 12.10.2009 and 24.10.2009, the petitioner was serving in the C&W Department and retired on 30.11.2009, therefore, he was required to obtain NOC/departmental permission before applying for the said post but no such NOC/departmental permission was obtained and the petitioner was able to secure the contractual appointment by concealing this fact and joined the contractual service on 01.12.2009 i.e. the very next day of his retirement from service, which fact alone is sufficient to reflect the mala fide and concealment on the part of the petitioner, adds that the Constitutional Petition is even otherwise not maintainable as an alternate and efficacious remedy in the form of an appeal under Section 20 of the Punjab Technical Education and Vocational Training Authority Act, 2010, is available to the petitioner and without exhausting the same, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the instant Constitutional Petition; further contends that the petitioner being a contract employee is barred from invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court; submits that disputed question of facts are involved in this case, which cannot be resolved by way of availing constitutional remedy; lastly submits that the petitioner has failed to point out any violation of his fundamental rights as guaranteed under Articles 4, 9 and 25 of the Constitution, which may warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction. Placed reliance on PIA Corporation v. Syed Suleman Alam, Rizvi and others(2015 SCMR 1545), Habib Bank Ltd. v. The State (2013 SCMR 840), Abdul Wahab and others v. Habib Bank Ltd. and others (2013 SCMR 1383), Federation of Pakistan through, Secretary Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs v.Muhammad Azam Chattha (2013 SCMR 120) and Qazi Munir Ahmed v. Rawalpindi Medical and Allied Hospital through Principle and others (2019 SCMR 648).

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. At the outset it is observed that the petitioner indeed had an alternate efficacious remedy available to him in the form of an appeal provided under Section 20 of the Punjab Technical Education and Vocational Training Authority Act, 2010, which remedy was never availed and the petitioner opted to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court without exhausting the remedy of the appeal provided by the statute, which governed the contractual appointment of the petitioner. Thus the petition in hand is not maintainable on this score alone.

7. Another aspect of the case is that the petitioner was an employee, who was appointed on contractual basis and the relationship is governed under the principle of Master and Servant. It is trite that the relationship of master and Servant implies a contractual relationship in which one party agrees to be under control of the other, therefore, constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan ("Constitution") cannot be invoked in such relationship. It is also well settled that the interference by the High Court is tenable in such appointments only in exceptional circumstances, whereas, no such exceptional circumstances exist in favour of the petitioner, which may warrant interference by this Court while exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution. Reliance in this respect may be placed upon M/s. Malik and Haq and another v. Muhammad Shamsul Islam Chowdhury and 2 others (PLD 1961 SC 531), President, Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited, Head Office, Islamabad v. Kishwar Khan and others (2022 SCMR 1598) Pakistan Electric Power Company v. Syed Salahuddin and others (2022 SCMR 991), Vice-Chancellor, Bacha Khan University Charsadda, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others v. Tanveer Ahmad and others (2021 SCMR 1995) Miss Naureen Naz Butt v. Pakistan International Airlines through Chairman, PIA and others (2020 SCMR 1625), M/s. Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. v. Zeeshan Usmani and others (2021 SCMR 609), Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Workers Welfare Board through Chairman v. Raheel Ali Gohar and others (2020 SCMR 2068). Therefore,thepetitioninhandisnotmaintainableonthisscore as well.

8. It is an admitted position that rules governing the petitioner's service with TEVTA i.e. TEVTA Service Regulations, 2011, are non-statutory in nature. It is well settled that where the conditions of service of an employee of even a statutory body are not regulated by statutory rules and are governed under the terms of a contract or the rules/instructions/regulation for internal use, the relationship of the employee with such instrumentality is governed by the principle of master and servant and any violation thereof cannot be enforced through constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. The said principle is etched in our jurisprudence as tablet of stone and hardly needs any reference to precedent any further, nevertheless, if need be, the reference may be made to consistent enunciation of the law by Supreme Court of Pakistan

1. For the purpose of completeness, the distinction as to the statutory and non-statutory rules is also well settled by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. In a nub, the rules of an Organization, if not approved by Government and having been drafted, approved or adopted for internal arrangement and functioning of such organization, are non-statutory2.

9. In view of above, the constitutional petition in hand is hereby dismissed being not maintainable. UN/F-12/L Petition dismissed. 1 Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited through Chairman v. Iqbal Nasir and others (PLD 2011 SC 132), Pakistan Defence Officer s case (2013 SCMR 1707), Pakistan Electric Power Company v. Syed Salahuddin and others (2022 SCMR 991), PIA Corporation v. Syed Suleman Alam Rizvi and others (2015 SCMR 1545), Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd. and others v. Said Rehman and others (2013 SCMR 642), Habib Bank Ltd. v. The State (2013 SCMR 840), Abdul Wahab and others v. Habib Bank Ltd. and others (2013 SCMR 1383), Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs v. Muhammad Azam Chattha (2013 SCMR 120), Pakistan International Airline Corporation and others v. Tanweer-ur-Rehman and others (PLD 2010 SC 676) and Executive Council, Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad throughChairman and another v. Muhammad Tufail Hashmi (2010 SCMR 1484). 2 Shafique Ahmed Khan and others v. NESCOM through Chairman, Islamabad and others (PLD 2016 SC 377), Ziaullah Khan Niazi v. Chairman, Pakistan Red Crescent Society (2004 SCMR 189) University of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others v. Ch. Sardar Ali (1992 SCMR 1093), M.H. Mirza v. Federation of Pakistan and 2 others (1994 SCMR 1024) and Muhammad Rafi and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2016 SCMR 2146).