P L D 2009 Islamabad 61 (PLP)

SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, C J.

Through instant writ petition, petitioner has called into question the legality of impugned order dated 7-7-2008, whereby the name of the petitioner has been placed on Exit Control List, as per section 2 of Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 by respondent No.2, on the pretext that he violated the rules and regulation of respondent No.3's department.

2. Petitioner was employed with respondent No.3's department on temporary/contract, basis, liable to termination on one month's notice or payment of one month basic pay in lieu thereof, on any side without assigning any reason. He submitted his resignation after fulfilling all requirements including surrendering one month's pay and received relieving order on 29-4-2008, as the petitioner succeeded to get admission in Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm, Sweden but respondent No.3 created hurdles and obstacles for the petitioner. He was subjected to discrimination because two other persons namely Mr. Khurram and Mr. Muhammad Karam also resigned from the respondent No.3's department but no action was taken against them.

3. Petitioner has alleged that to travel abroad in pursuit of higher education is a fundamental right; embargo placed is against norms of natural justice and impugned order is in sheer violation ,of petitioner's right safeguarded by Articles 2-A, 4, 9, 15 and 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

4. Heard, record perused.

5. Petitioner was an employee of the NDC on contract, liable to termination on one month's notice or payment of one month basic pay, in lieu thereof, on any side without assigning any reasons. On 17-4-2008 A NDC accepted resignation of the petitioner, subject to payment of one month basic pay in lieu of notice. On 29-4-2008 'relieving order was issued upon acceptance of his resignation. Petitioner's name has been placed on Exit Control List, at the instance of Directorate General, Inter Services Intelligence, Islamabad.

6. Stance of respondent No.1 is that they had placed his name on Exit Control List on the direction of Directorate General Inter Services Intelligence, Islamabad. Respondent No.3 has attached with his comments a pro forma containing `Preliminary Informations'. Para 9 of this Preliminary Informations, is recommendation for placing the name of employees on ECL particularly in case where the individual has worked on strategic side and/or absented himself illegally resulting into his dismissal from service. In answer to this the officials of NDC remarked: -- "Strongly Recommended for one to two years". Reading other paragraphs, it is clear that petitioner has not received any training or study at the government expense inside or outside country; he has not signed any surety bond to remain in service; no work at the project is to suffer, if his resignation is accepted and that during his seven months stay in job, he was engaged in highly sensitive project work, however, no untoward activity was noticed against the petitioner during his service.

7. It is abundantly clear from the Preliminary Inforamtions, attached with reply by respondent No.3 that petitioner is not involved in any noticeable activity. It is also admitted that project has not suffered on account of resignation submitted by him. The only reasons for placing his name on ECL is his seven months service on sensitive project. Whether a person, engaged in sensitive projects can be placed on ECL and debarred from obtaining further education outside country? The respondent authority firstly employed the petitioner on contract and provided that cont act may be terminated on one month's notice by either side. His resignation was accepted voluntarily. The respondent authority has to devise a policy clearly putting at notice to an employee on contract that on termination of the contract by efflux of time or by resignation, he would be barred to proceed abroad for a particular period of time. In the absence of such a clause devoted in the contract, a person cannot be prevented from pursuit' of higher education abroad. There is no material on record against the petitioner of his involvement in any manner affecting the State or p, .judicial to the interest of the country.

8. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order of respondents, placing the name of petitioner on ECL vide order dated 7-7-2008 is set aside. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 are, thus, directed to remove the name of petitioner from the Exist Control List. M.B.A./A-23/Isl. Petition allowed.