1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

M. Umar Qureshi for Respondent No.

1. G.H. MALIK, J.‑--‑The petitioner was appointed Radio Technician by the respondent with effect from 1st June, 1982. Subsequently, the respondent No.1 selected 32 candidates, including the petitioner, for the post of Assistant Communication Officers. After the selection, the candidates were sent for training in two batches. The petitioner was sent in the second of the two batches and, after completion of the training, was posted at Karachi Airport on the 10th March, 1988, as Assistant Communication Officer on probation for a period of one year which period was completed on the 10th March, 1989. Thereafter a letter of appointment was issued to the petitioner appointing him Assistant Communication Officer with effect from 11th March,1988. The grievance of the petitioner is that the sending of the candidates in two batches for training and the seniority awarded to those candidates was in violation of the service regulations of the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 has denied the allegation and taken the position that the candidates were sent for training purely on merits and in accordance with the position secured by them during their tests and interviews and that, therefore, the selection of the petitioner in the second batch was just, proper and legal. Mr. M. Umar Qureshi, the learned counsel for respondent No.1, submits that the petition is not maintainable because the service rules of the respondent No.1 are not statutory rules and, therefore, are not enforceable by a writ petition. He relies on unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Constitution Petition No.D‑377 of 1991. In that case, the service rules of Civil Aviation Authority, the respondent No.1 herein, were considered and it was held that the respondent No.1 is a corporate body and its employees were governed by regulations framed under sections 12 and 27 of the Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance. 1982. With respect to those regulations, it was held "The said regulations also cannot be equated with statutory rules according to the test laid down by the Supreme Court in The Principal, Cadet College, Kollat v. Muhammad Shoab Qureshi (PLD 1984 SC 170) and Anwar Hussain v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan (PLD 1984 SC 194). Although power vests in the Civil Aviation Authority established under the said Ordinance to frame regulations prescribing the procedure for appointment of its officers, servants etc. and also to prescribe their terms and conditions of service but the Government admittedly has not reserved to itself the power to supervise or approve such regulations leaving the matter entirely to the discretion of the said Authority As was held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, if terms and conditions of service of employees who are not governed by statutory rules, but only by regulations, instructions or directions which institution or body which has employed them has issued for its internal use, they cannot be enforced in case of violation thereof through a writ petition." The above principle has recently been reaffirmed in the case of Chairman, Wapda and 2 others v. Syed Jamil Ahmad (1993 SCMR 346) wherein it was observed (at page 354)‑‑‑ "The legal position obtaining in respect of employees of the statutory corporations seems to be that where the Government while setting up a Corporation does not reserve to itself the power to regulate the terms of service of the corporation's employees under the relevant statute and does not prescribe any condition, but leaves it to the discretion of the corporation by empowering it to frame rules or regulations in respect thereof without the Government's intervention, then the Corporation will be the sole arbiter in the matter of prescribing the terms and conditions of its employees and will be competent to deal with them in accordance with the terms and conditions prescribed by it. In such a case neither a suit nor a writ petition for the relief of re‑instatement will be competent and the remedy of an employee, for wrongful dismissal from or of termination of service will be a suit for damages as the principle of master and servant will be applicable."" The respondent No.1 has been empowered by section 12 of the Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982, to prescribe by regulations the procedure for appointment of its officers, servants, experts and consultants, and the terms and conditions of their service. The Government his not reserved to itself any power to regulate the terms of service of the employees of the respondent No.1 but has left it to discretion of the respondent No.1 by empowering it to frame regulations without Government's intervention. The relationship of the petitioner and the respondent No.1 is, therefore, one of master and servant and his remedy for the alleged contravention of the service regulations is to file a suit for such relief as may be available to him but the remedy by way of petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is not available to him. This petition is, therefore, not maintainable and is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./A‑1500/K??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Petition dismissed. ???????????