2021 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

WIQAR AHMAD, J.

Our this consolidated judgment is directed to dispose of W.P. No.394-M of 2019, W.P. No.395-M/2019, W.P. No.397/2019, W.P. No.398-M/2019, W.P. No.399-M/2019, W.P. No.400-M/2019, W.P. No.401-M/2019, W.P. No.402-M/2019, W.P. No.403-M/2019, W.P. No.404-M/2019, W.P. No.405-M/2019, W.P. No.406-M/2019, W.P. No.407-M/2019, W.P. No.408-M/2019, W.P. No.409-M/2019, W.P. No.410-M/2019, W.P. No.412-M/2019, W.P. No.413-M/2019 and 414-M/2019, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions.

2. Brief facts of each case are given hereunder; W.P. No.394-M of 2019. "Hina Khan v. Registrar University of Swat and others" The petitioner was appointed as lecturer at the department of Economics University of Swat on 2nd July 2013 on contract basis for a period of six (6) months with effect from the date of joining duty, at a fixed pay of Rs. 49,727/- per month. Her contract was extended from time to time till 9th July 2018, by orders of the Vice Chancellor of the University under the powers vested in him by section 11(5)(c) of University of Swat Regulation, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulation"). The seat on which the petitioner was working was later on advertised by the University authorities and contract of the petitioner was not extended any further as the post was intended to be filled on regular basis. Applications were later on invited for filling the seats on regular basis. Aggrieved from non-extension of her contract and with a prayer of regularization of the service, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. W.P. No.395-M of 2019. "Muhammad Ismail v. Registrar Universitv of Swat and others" The petitioner was appointed as lecturer at the department of Computer and Software Technology University of Swat on 23rd January 2014 on contract basis for a period of six (6) months with effect from the date of joining duty. His contract was extended from time to time till 9th July 2018, by orders of the Vice Chancellor of University under the powers vested in him by section 11(5)(c) of the Regulation. The seat on which the petitioner has been working was later on advertised by the University Authorities and contract of the petitioner was not extended any further as the post was intended to be filled on regular basis. Applications were later on invited for filling the seats on regular basis. Aggrieved from non-extension of his contract and with a prayer of regularization of the service, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. W.P. No.397-M of 2019. "Asma Bibi v. Rezistrar University of Swat and others" The petitioner was appointed as lecturer at the department of Chemistry University of Swat on 1st September 2014 on contract basis for a period of six (6) months with effect from the date of joining duty, at a fixed pay of Rs.51,727/- per month. Her contract was extended from time to time till 9th July 2018, by orders of the Vice Chancellor of the University under the powers vested in him by section 11(5)(c) of the Regulation. The seat on which the petitioner was working was later on advertised by the University Authorities and contract of the petitioner was not extended any further as the post was intended to be filled on regular basis. Applications were later on invited for filling the seats on regular basis. Aggrieved from non-extension of her contract and with a prayer of regularization of the service, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. W.P. No. 398-M of 2019 "Muhammad Sohail v. Rezistrar University of Swat and others" The petitioner was appointed as lecturer at the department of Finance University of Swat on 1st September 2014 on contract basis for a period of six (6) months or till arrival of permanent selectee whichever is earlier with effect from the date of joining duty, at a fixed pay of Rs. 51,727/- per month. His contract was extended from time to time till 9th July 2018, by orders of the Vice Chancellor of the University under the powers vested in him by section 11(5)(c) of the Regulation. The seat on which the petitioner was working was later on advertised by the University Authorities and contract of the petitioner was not extended any further as the post was intended to be filled on regular basis. Applications were later on invited for filling the seats on regular basis. Aggrieved from non-extension of his contract and with a prayer of regularization of the service, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. W.P. No. 399-M of 2019 "Mst. Shazia v. Registrar University of Swat and others" The petitioner was appointed as lecturer at the department of Botany University of Swat on 17th August 2015 on contract basis for a period of one year with effect from the date of joining duty or till arrival of permanent selectee, at a fixed pay of Rs.53,727/- per month. Her contract was extended from time to time till 9th July 2018, by orders of the Vice Chancellor of the University under the powers vested in him by section 11(5)(c) of the Regulation. The seat on which the petitioner was working was later on advertised by the University Authorities and contract of the petitioner was not extended any further as the post was intended to be filled on regular basis. Applications were later on invited for filling the seats on regular basis. Aggrieved from non-extension of her contract and with a prayer of regularization of the service, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. W.P. No. 400-M of 2019 "Hamid-ur-Rehman v. Registrar University of Swat and others" The petitioner was appointed as lecturer at the department of Zoology University of Swat on 24th October 2013 on contract basis for a period of six (6) months with effect from the date of joining duty or till arrival of permanent selectee, whichever is earlier. His contract was extended from time to time till 9th July 2018, by orders of the Vice Chancellor of the University under the powers vested in him by section 11(5)(c) of the Regulation. The seat on which the petitioner was working was later on advertised by the University Authorities and contract of the petitioner was not extended any further as the post was intended to be filled on regular basis. Applications were later on invited for filling the seats on regular basis. Aggrieved from non-extension of his contract and with a prayer of regularization of the service, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. W.P. No. 401-M of 2019 "Naseerullah v. Registrar University of Swat and others" The petitioner was appointed as lecturer at the department of Zoology University of Swat on 28th July 2015 on contract basis for a period of twelve months with effect from the date of joining duty or till arrival of permanent selectee, whichever is earlier at a fixed pay of Rs.53,727/- per month. His contract was extended from time to time till 9th July 2018, by orders of the Vice Chancellor of the University under the powers vested in him by section 11(5)(c) of the Regulation. The seat on which the petitioner was working was later on advertised by the University Authorities and contract of the petitioner was not extended any further as the post was intended to be filled on regular basis. Applications were later on invited for filling the seats on regular basis. Aggrieved from non-extension of his contract and with a prayer of regularization of the service, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. W.P. No. 402-M of 2019 "Naeemullah v. Registrar University of Swat and others" The petitioner was appointed as lecturer at the department of Computer Science University of Swat on 23rd January 2014 on contract basis for a period of six (6) months with effect from the date of joining duty. His contract was extended from time to time till 9th July 2018, by orders of the Vice Chancellor of the University under the powers vested in him by section 11(5)(c) of the Regulation. The seat on which the petitioner was working was later on advertised by the University Authorities and contract of the petitioner was not extended any further as the post was intended to be filled on regular basis. Applications were later on invited for filling the seats on regular basis. Aggrieved from non-extension of his contract and with a prayer of regularization of the service, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. W.P. No. 403-M of 2019 "Zahid Nasir v. Registrar University of Swat and others" The petitioner was appointed as lecturer at the department of Pak Studies University of Swat on 12th October, 2015 on contract basis for a period of one year with effect from the date of joining duty or till arrival of permanent selectee, at a fixed pay of Rs.53,727/- per month. His contract was extended from time to time till 26th July 2018, by orders of the Vice Chancellor of the University under the powers vested in him by section 11(5)(c) of the Regulation. The seat on which the petitioner was working was later on advertised by the University Authorities and contract of the petitioner was not extended any further as the post was intended to be filled on regular basis. Applications were later on invited for filling the seats on regular basis. Aggrieved from non-extension of his contract and with a prayer of regularization of the service, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. W.P. No. 404-M of 2019 "Khawaja Tariq Zaid v. Registrar University of Swat and others" The petitioner was appointed as lecturer at the department of Economics University of Swat on 5th March 2015 on contract basis for a period of six (6) months with effect from the date of joining duty or till arrival of permanent selectee, whichever is earlier at fixed pay of Rs.53,727/- per month. His contract was extended from time to time till 9th July 2018, by orders of the Vice Chancellor of the University under the powers vested in him by section 11(5)(c) of the Regulation. The seat on which the petitioner was working was later on advertised by the University Authorities and contract of the petitioner was not extended any further as the post was intended to be filled on regular basis. Applications were later on invited for filling the seats on regular basis. Aggrieved from non-extension of his contract and with a prayer of regularization of the service, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. W.P. No. 405-M of 2019 "Mst. Neelam Akber Marwat v. Registrar University of Swat and others" The petitioner was appointed as lecturer at the department of Marketing University of Swat on 8th September 2014 on contract basis for a period of six (6) months with effect from the date of joining duty. Her contract was extended from time to time till 9th July 2018, by orders of the Vice Chancellor of the University under the powers vested in him by section 11(5)(c) of the Regulation. The seat on which the petitioner was working was later on advertised by the University Authorities and contract of the petitioner was not extended any further as the post was intended to be filled on regular basis. Applications were later on invited for filling the seats on regular basis. Aggrieved from non-extension of her contract and with a prayer of regularization of the service, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. W.P. No. 406-M of 2019 "Maryam v. Registrar University of Swat and others" The petitioner was appointed as lecturer at the department of Basic Science (Education Department) on 18th March 2011 on contract basis for a period of six (6) months. Her contract was extended from time to time till 9th July 2018, by orders of the Vice Chancellor of the University under the powers vested in him by section 11(5)(c) of the Regulation. The seat on which the petitioner was working was later on advertised by the University Authorities and contract of the petitioner was not extended any further as the post was intended to be filled on regular basis. Applications were later on invited for filling the seats on regular basis. Aggrieved from non-extension of her contract and with a prayer of regularization of the service, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. W.P. No. 407-M of 2019 "Bushra Kiran v. Registrar University of Swat and others" The petitioner was appointed as lecturer at the department of Economics on 17th September 2010 on contract basis. Her contract was extended from time to time till 13th October 2016, by orders of the Vice Chancellor of the University under the powers vested in him by section 11(5)(c) of the Regulation. The seat on which the petitioner was working was later on advertised by the University Authorities and contract of the petitioner was not extended any further as the post was intended to be filled on regular basis. Applications were later on invited for filling the seats on regular basis. Aggrieved from non-extension of her contract and with a prayer of regularization of the service, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. W.P. No. 408-M of 2019 "Aliya Bibi v. Registrar University of Swat and others" The petitioner was appointed as lecturer at College of Home Sciences University of Swat on 17th September 2014 on contract basis. Her contract was extended from time to time till 9th July 2018, by orders of the Vice Chancellor of the University under the powers vested in him by section 11(5)(c) of University of the Regulation. The seat on which the petitioner was working was later on advertised by the University Authorities and contract of the petitioner was not extended any further as the post was intended to be filled on regular basis. Applications were later on invited for filling the seats on regular basis. Aggrieved from non-extension of her contract and with a prayer of regularization of the service, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. W.P. No. 409-M of 2019 "Jawad Muhammad v. Registrar University of Swat and others" The petitioner was appointed as lecturer at the department of Economics University of Swat on 5th March 2015 on contract basis for a period of six (6) months with effect from the date of joining duty or till arrival of permanent selectee, whichever is earlier at fixed pay of Rs.53,727/- per month. His contract was extended from time to time till 9th July 2018, by orders of the Vice Chancellor of the University under the powers vested in him by section 11 (5) (c) of the Regulation. It had not been disclosed in the writ petition but the respondents/university have annexed with its comments a letter dated 25th October 2015 whereby the petitioner namely Mr. Jawad Mohammad had been appointed as lecturer in Economics on regular basis after being so concurred by the Syndicate of University of Swat. He was also shown to have been pursuing his Ph.D studies overseas under the Faculty Development Program of the University. His subsequent appointment dated 25th October 2018 is not disputed in the instant proceedings, the petitioner is however seeking his regularization from his initial date of appointment i.e. 5th March 2015 on contract basis made by Vice Chancellor under the powers vested in him by section 11(5)(c) of the Regulation. W.P. No. 410-M of 2019 "Shehryar Khan v. Registrar University of Swat and others" The petitioner was appointed as lecturer at the department of Development Studies University of Swat on 5th March 2015 on contract basis for a period of six (6) months with effect from the date of joining duty or till arrival of permanent selectee, whichever is earlier at fixed pay of Rs.53,727/- per month. His contract was extended from time to time till 2nd July 2018, by orders of the Vice Chancellor of the University under the powers vested in him by section 11(5)(c) of the Regulation. The seat on which the petitioner was working was later on advertised by the University Authorities and contract of the petitioner was not extended any further as the post was intended to be filled on regular basis. Applications were later on invited for filling the seats on regular basis. Aggrieved from non-extension of his contract and with a prayer of regularization of the service, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. W.P. No. 412-M of 2019 "Rabia Siraj v. Registrar University of Swat and others" The petitioner was appointed as lecturer at the department of Economics University of Swat on 11th September 2014 on contract basis for a period of six (6) months with effect from the date of joining duty or till arrival of permanent selectee, whichever is earlier at fixed pay of Rs.57,227/- per month. Her contract was extended from time to time till 9th July 2018, by orders of the Vice Chancellor of the University under the powers vested in him by section 11(5)(c) of the Regulation. The seat on which the petitioner was working was later on advertised by the University Authorities and contract of the petitioner was not extended any further as the post was intended to be filled on regular basis. Applications were later on invited for filling the seats on regular basis. Aggrieved from non-extension of her contract and with a prayer of regularization of the service, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. W.P. No. 413-M of 2019 "Palwasha Rahim v. Registrar University of Swat and others" The petitioner was appointed as lecturer at the department of Psychological Studies University of Swat on 19th May 2014 on contract basis for a period of six (6) months with effect from the date of joining duty. Her contract was extended from time to time till 9th July 2018, by orders of the Vice Chancellor of the University under the powers vested in him by section 11(5)(c) of the Regulation. The seat on which the petitioner was working was later on advertised by the University Authorities and contract of the petitioner was not extended any further as the post was intended to be filled on regular basis. Applications were later on invited for filling the seats on regular basis. Aggrieved from non-extension of her contract and with a prayer of regularization of the service, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. W.P. No. 414-M/2019 "Adnan Khan v. Registrar University of Swat and others" The petitioner was appointed as lecturer at the department of Geology University of Swat on 30th September 2014 on contract basis for a period of six (6) months with effect from the date of joining duty, at a fixed pay of Rs. 53,727/- per month. His contract was extended from time to time till 9th July 2018, by orders of the Vice Chancellor of the University under the powers vested in him by section 11 (5) (c) of the Regulation. The seat on which the petitioner was working was later on advertised by the University Authorities and contract of the petitioner was not extended any further as the post was intended to be filled the post on regular basis after inviting applications for filling the seats on regular basis. Aggrieved from non-extension of his contract and with a prayer of regularization of the service, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. The petitioners have approached this Court wherein interim relief had been granted to them and therefore they are still continuing their services and further steps could not be taken by the University in pursuance to the advertisement issued in daily newspapers for appointment on the posts on which the petitioners have been working.

3. Respondents were summoned, who filed their para-wise comments wherein a good number of preliminary objections were raised to the maintainability of the writ petitions beside contesting the same on merits. Respondents have mainly asserted in their comments that orders of the petitioners in all these cases had been issued on need basis by the Vice Chancellor under section 11 (5) (c) of the Regulation which powers could only be resorted to, in exigencies of service and as a stopgap arrangement. None of the appointment of the petitioners or extension in contract had ever been placed before the Syndicate for its affirmation.

4. Learned counsel Mr. Shams-ul-Hadi Advocate argued the cases on behalf of all the petitioners and relied upon judgment of this Court recorded in the case of "Sanaullah v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others" ("W.P. No. 86 of 2018") and contended that the petitioners have been appointed in a regular manner and therefore they deserved to be regularized on the posts on which they have been working for a long time, to the entire satisfaction of the authorities of the University. He added that the services of similar employees of the other University have already been regularized through the referred judgment, therefore the petitioners also deserved to be regularized on their respective posts. Learned counsel for petitioners also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of "Farmanullah Khan v. Gomal University D.I. Khan and others" reported as "2017 PLC (C.S.) Note 116 and unreported judgments of this Court given in W.P. No. 320-D of 2014 and W.P. No. 487-M of 2015.

5. Learned counsel namely Mr. Waseem-ud-Din Khattak, Mr. Abdul Halim Khan, Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad (Senior), Mr. Khwaja Salah-ud-Din, Mr. Arshad Khan and Barrister Asad-ur-Rehman Advocates argued the cases on behalf of respondents, who opposed the arguments of learned counsel for petitioners and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Pakistan Telecommunication Co. LTD Through Chairman v. Iqbal Nasir" reported as (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 132)" and submitted that the writ petitions of all these petitioners were not even maintainable. They further added that Higher Education Commission of Pakistan had raised the criteria for the post of lecturer in Universities through their Notification dated 26th January, 2017 and most of the petitioners of these connected writ petitions lacked the enhanced qualifications required in the said notification, which had been adopted by the University of Swat. Learned counsel further placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Mrs. Danish Alam and another v. University of Peshawar and others" ("Civil Appeal No. 1431 of 2015") and contended that the enhanced criteria of appointment was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court to be applicable to all the appointees, who will be injected into the services of the Universities despite the fact that they may have been serving in the Universities on contract earlier. They have also placed reliance upon the judgments reported as "1990 SCMR 1524, 2005 SCMR 642, PLD 2006 Supreme Court 472, PLD 2011 Supreme Court 132, 2011 PLC (C.S.) 1007, 2013 SCMR 13, 2013 SCMR 304, 2013 SCMR 120, 2013 SCMR 264, 2014 PLC (C.S.) Supreme Court 393, 2015 PLC (C.S.) 1385, 2015 PLC (C.S.) 489 and 2016 MLD 95 (Peshawar). The learned counsel have also placed reliance on the unreported judgments of this Court given in "W.P. No. 4469-P of 2017, W.P. No. 5210 of 2017 and W.P. No. 418-P of 2018" and contended that in all those cases the writ petitions for regularization of services of the contract employees in various universities have been dismissed by this Court.

6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. All the petitioners had been appointed by the Vice Chancellor under the powers vested in him by section 11(5)(c) of the Regulation. The contracts for rehiring of services of the petitioners have also been issued by the Vice Chancellor under the same powers and their cases have never been submitted to the Syndicate for approval. The said provision is relevant for the present discourse, it is therefore reproduced hereunder for ready reference; (5) The Vice Chancellor shall also have the following powers to; (a) .. (b) .. (c) create, re-designate and fill contract, temporary posts for a period not exceeding one year; Perusal of above quoted regulation shows that these powers of the Vice Chancellor were supposed to be exercised for plugging the gaps in running of the affairs of the University for a short time. Allowing of the instant writ petitions and granting of the reliefs would have the effect of converting temporary steps of the Vice Chancellor into permanent one. It is also important to be noted that the authority of the Vice Chancellor in this respect is limited to taking temporary steps for a specific period of one year. For the continuation of these appointments beyond one year, the Vice Chancellor was not at all competent under the law. The power of appointments to posts in BPS-17 or above lies with the Syndicate of the University. The powers of appointment of a Vice Chancellor for making permanent appointment is limited to posts in BPS-1 to 16 according to Rule 5 of the University of Swat Service Statutes 2016 as well as in the earlier dispensation provided under Rule 53 of the Regulation. In this regard, Regulation No. 23 Sub-Regulation No.2 Clause (L) is also relevant, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference;

23. Powers and duties of the Syndicate.- (1) .. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers, and subject to the provisions of this Regulation, the Statutes and directions of the Senate, the Syndicate shall have the following powers, namely:- (L) institute Professorships, Associate Professorships, Assistant Professorships, Lecturer ships, and other teaching posts or to suspend or abolish such posts; The powers of appointment of the teaching staff have specifically been vested in the Syndicate in view of the above reproduced regulation. The words "reengagement" or "reappointment" seems to have been purposely used in the contracts of the renewal of the petitioners, knowing well that the Vice Chancellor did not have the authority to extend the contract of services of the petitioners beyond the period of one year. The contrivance of this "reengagement" was itself devised for circumventing a legal clog put in place on the powers of Vice Chancellor by the said clause. He could not have extended the services of the petitioners beyond one year, therefore the phrases like "reengagement" and "reappointment" were applied for no other purpose but to defeat the spirit of the said Regulation. This was not at all a proper exercise of powers by the concerned University authorities. The orders made under the said Regulation therefore do not give any right to the petitioners to be regularized.

8. A University is a body which is normally chartered by or under a Statute or other instrument having the force of law. Endowing degree awarding status on an organization has been a serious business that is why Universities are not only established under the force of law but are always regulated by law either primary or through subordinate legislation. The legislation of a University also provides for the method of recruitment of officers of the University both in teaching cadre as well as in administrative cadre. The services of the teaching staff of the University in the cases in hand were also regulated by the Regulation issued under Article 247 (now omitted) of the Constitution. When entry into a service is regulated by a Statute or rules framed thereunder, then entry to the said service cannot be allowed otherwise than as provided by law. This Court has already held in the case of "Muhammad Ahmad Khan Bittani v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others" ("W.P. 4813-P/2019") that a writ can only be issued in aid of law and not otherwise. In the cases where services of the employees are regulated by a Statute or statutory rules then regularization of an employee can only be ordered when it is so provided under any law or rules having the force of law, or a case of discriminatory treatment is made out i.e. where benefit of a law of regularization is extended to some but denied to the others. The cases of the petitioners are falling in none of the above stated categories. Neither could they establish a case under the Regulation nor under any other law provided for regularization of the petitioners. In the given situation, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to the University authorities when they do not have a corresponding duty under the law to regularize the petitioners. It has already been held by this Court in the case of "Arshad and 3 others v. The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others" ("W.P. No. 713-M of 2017") that a constitutional Court cannot issue any direction to the Government or other statutory functionary to do a particular act unless it was found that it was their statutory or legal obligation to do the same, which is not the case here. The Hon'ble Balochistan High Court in its judgment in the case of "Nasrullah and others v. Chairman, Water and Sanitation Authority (WASA), Quetta and 3 others" reported as "2014 PLC (C.S.) 531" has also held a similar view and has laid down that the concept of regularization is not lawful unless a law specifically so provided.

9. Arguments of the learned counsel for petitioners, that employees in other Universities have been regularized in some of the cases, may not be treated as sufficient for making out a case for discriminatory treatment. Universities are autonomous bodies having its independent regulatory framework and governance bodies. This Court has held in its judgment given in the case of "Owais Shams Durrani and others v. Vice Chancellor, Bacha Khan University Charsada and another" ("W.P. No.5210/2017") that every University has its own respective rules and regulation and is fully autonomous in dealing with its affairs. An example or an act of one University may not be made a basis for the other University to dovetail the act of the former.

10. Learned counsel for respondents have also raised objection to the maintainability of these petitions on the basis of ratio laid down in the case of "Pakistan Telecommunication Co. LTD. through Chairman v. Iqbal Nasir" reported as "PLD 2011 Supreme Court 132". In the said judgment, the Hon'ble apex Court held that a writ petition of an employee would not be maintainable in case where the rules of an organization were not found to be statutory even if the organization was found amenable to the exercise of writ jurisdiction. At Para 25 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble apex Court has further held as follows; "

25. The learned counsel for the respondents though placed on record a copy of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Service Regulations, 1996 framed under section 20 of the Act of 1991, but failed to show whether the said Regulations were duly notified in the official Gazette. However, even if such Regulations were duly made, they were not holding the field after the repeal of the Act of 1991 under which the said Regulations were made. Further, as per Regulation 1.02 thereof, the said Regulations would not apply to a person employed on contract or on work-charged basis or who is paid from contingencies. They would be governed by the principle of 'Master and Servant'. Applying the principles of law enunciated in the above cited judgments to the case in hand, in absence of statutory rules, writ petitions filed by the employees of the PTCL were not maintainable." University in the cases in hand, is no doubt amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court but the services of the petitioners were not regulated by the Statue, Regulation or any statutory rules. Their services were in-fact regulated by the terms of the contracts, which have been signed by them with the University from time to time. Another Para of the said judgment is also fortifying us in our view, which is also reproduced hereunder for ready reference; "All the employees having entered into contracts of service on the same or similar terms and conditions have no vested right to seek regularization of their employment, which is discretionary with the master. The master is well within his rights to retain or dispense with the services of an employee on the basis of satisfactory or otherwise performance. The contract employees have no right to invoke writ jurisdiction, particularly in the instant case where their services have been terminated on completion of period of contract. Since they fall within the definition of workman, they would be entitled to one month's notice or salary in lieu thereof, as permissible to them under the rule of master and servant." In support of the said ratio, further reliance can also be placed on the judgments in the case of "Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority and others v. Lt. Col. Syed Jawaid Ahmed" reported as 2013 SCMR 1707 and in the case of "Abdul Wahab and others v. Habib Bank Ltd. and others" reported as "2014 PLC (C.S.) 393". The objection of learned counsel for respondents is therefore found to be well-placed and the writ petitions of the petitioners are also found to be non-maintainable.

11. The contract appointments do not cloth the petitioners with a right of regular appointment also, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Government of Balochistan v. Dr. Zahid Kaker and 43 others reported as "2005 SCMR 642". The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Court are also reproduced hereunder for ready reference; "Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioners are contractual employees and on that score according to the consistent view of this Court do not have vested right for regular appointment." In support of same ratio, further reliance can also be placed on the judgments in the case of "Tehsil Municipal Officer, TMA Kahuta and another v. Gul Faraz Khan" reported as "2013 SCMR 13" and in case of "Brig. (R) Sakhi Marjan, CEO, PESCO Peshawar v. Managing Director PESCO Lahore and others" reported as "2011 PLC (CS.) 1007 (Supreme Court of Pakistan)".

12. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for petitioners were relating to cases of other Universities and had been returned on the basis of the facts provided to the Hon'ble Courts in the said cases which were mostly distinguishable from the cases in hand. Furthermore, it can equally be argued by learned counsel for respondents that large number of cases of regularization of services of University employees have been dismissed by this Court as is evident from decisions in "W.P. No. 4469-P of 2017, W.P. No. 5210 of 2017 and W.P. No. 418-P of 2018". The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for petitioners cannot be interpreted to be laying down a universal rule or principle of law, which may be pressed into service in all the cases of contract employees of different universities. The said judgments are therefore found to be distinguishable.

13. Another aspect of the matter relevant in most of the cases is that the Higher Education Commission vide their letter/Notification No.14(FAC)/QA/2017/HEC/22-84 dated 26th January, 2017 have enhanced the eligibility criteria for appointment of lecturers. The criteria has been adopted and applied by the University to appointments of teaching staff in all the departments except the departments of Engineering, Information Technology, Computer Science, Medical Science, Law and Arts and Design (Studio Practice). Respondents have raised the objection of lack of qualifications of the petitioners according to the newly adopted criteria, in Writ Petition numbers 394-M of 2019, 395-M/2019, 397-M/2019, 398-M/2019, 401- M/2019, 408-M/2019, 410-M/2019, 412-M/2019, 413-M/2019 and 414-M/2019. Learned counsel for those petitioners have argued that the criteria could not be given a retrospective effect so as to cover the cases of the petitioners. These arguments against the retrospective operation of the criteria were considered by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of "University of Peshawar through Registrar and others v. Mrs. Danish Alam and others" ("Civil Appeal No. 1431 of 2016"), wherein the Hon'ble apex Court in its judgment dated 19th September 2017 held that the enhanced criteria shall squarely apply to all the appointments in the Universities. All the arguments against retrospective operation of the criteria were fully addressed and it was held that the appointments then made shall be subject to the said criteria despite the fact that the employee may be serving in the universities on contract basis earlier. While relying upon the judgment in the case of "Noor Muhammad Khan Marwat v. Vice-Chancellor Gomnal University" reported as "PLD 2001 Supreme Court 219" and another judgment reported as "PLD 2006 Supreme Court 564", the Hon'ble apex Court also reiterated the principle that unless the University authorities transgress the scope of their authority or act in violation of the Statute, Courts should always be loath to interfere with the smooth affairs of the University. The situation in the cases in hand also demands a similar approach. In this regard, further reliance can also be placed on the judgments in the case of "Imtiaz Ahmed and others v. Punjab Public Service Commission through Secretary Lahore and others" reported as "PLD 2006 Supreme Court 472" and in the case of "Government of N.W.F.P. Health and Social Welfare Department v. Dr. Sheikh Muzaffar Iqbal and others" reported as "1990 SCMR 1524".

14. For what has been discussed above, all the writ petitions in hand are found to be non-maintainable as well as meritless and same are accordingly dismissed. ZC/54/P Petitions dismissed.