' JAVED IQBAL, J.---The above captioned appeals with leave of the Court are directed against the judgment, dated 19-7-2001 passed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, whereby the Constitutional petitions preferred on behalf of appellants have been dismissed.
2. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court vide order, dated 3-10-2001 which is reproduced hereinbelow to appreciate the legal and factual aspects of the controversy:--- "Common questions are involved in Civil Petitions Nos.767-K to 770-K of 2001. The relevant facts are as follows.
(2) It is alleged that the petitioners are fully trained Flight Stewards and they received training at the PIA Training Centre, Karachi Airport in the year 1996 and that on completion of the training they got P.I.A.C. Crew uniforms. According to the petitioners, the Flight Stewards, who had completed training along with the petitioners, were inducted in service of P.I.A.C. And are performing duties assigned to them. The petitioners, however, were not appointed as Flight Steward by the respondent on the ground mentioned in the letter, dated 28-3-1997.
(3) These petitions are time-barred by one day. Under the circumstances, the delay is condoned.
(4) Inter alia, leave to appeal is granted to consider the following:-
(a) Whether the petitioners were discriminated by way of violation of Article 25 of the Constitution?
(b) Whether the impugned letters/orders of not inducting the petitioners in service of P.I.A.C. Are mala fide, illegal and without lawful authority?
(c) Whether the respondents violated the order of this Court dated 16-3-1998 passed in various petitions including Civil Appeal No,1422 of 1997 by not appointing the petitioners in service?
(5) These appeals be fixed for final hearing at an early date."
3. We have heard Mr. Abdul Mujeeb 'Pirzada, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of appellants and Mr. Muhammad Yawar Ali, learned Advocate Supreme Court who entered appearance on behalf of P.I.A.C. (respondent) at length. They have also submitted their written arguments. Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of appellants has urged emphatically that the legal and factual aspects of the controversy have not been appreciated in its true perspective by the learned High Court, which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is contended that the learned High Court has erred while holding that selection of the appellants was irregular based on political and extraneous consideration and they were not eligible and qualified for such posts for the reasons that the appellants were eligible and after having completion of all necessary formalities, they were appointed as Flight Stewards pursuant to advertisements appeared in various leading newspapers of the country and moreso they had qualified not only written tests but also cleared by the Selection Board after interview and thereafter, they were to be appointed as Flight Stewards. It is also pointed out that on successful completion of training, they were not posted against vacant vacancies of the Flight Stewards. Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, learned Advocate Supreme - Court on behalf of appellants urged with vehemence that there was no departure or deviation from any rule, bylaws or instruction prevalent on the relevant time for such appointments, hence by no stretch of imagination the appointments can be declared as irregular. It is also argued that no evidence worth the name has come on record showing that any political pressure was exerted by the appellants. It is next argued that in view of clause 'c' of the letter whereby the posts of Flight Stewards were offered to the appellants could not have been cancelled or withdrawn by the P.I.A.C. Because for all practical purposes the appellants were appointed as Flight Stewards in Pay Group IV after having gone through the requisite training and valuable vested rights accrued in favor of the appellants to be appointed in Pay Group IV. In order to substantiate, the said arguments, the principle of Promissory Estoppel has been pressed into service. It is also contended that no opportunity of hearing whatsoever was afforded to the appellants against the action impugned in violation of the principle of natural justice, equity and fairplay and on this score alone the judgment impugned is liable to be set aside.
It is argued that the impugned order has been passed in violation of provisions as contained in Article 4 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which guarantees the right to every individual to be dealt with in accordance with law. It is mentioned that the impugned action is also not in consonance with the provisions as contained in Article 25 of the Constitution. Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of appellants, argued that it is a case of sheer discrimination as the trainees of earlier Batches Nos.267 to 273, who were selected along with the appellants, were appointed and the appellants have been discriminated without any lawful justification and therefore, the impugned orders have no regal value whatsoever in the eye of law and thus is liable to be struck down. In this particular regard, reference has been made to the appointment letters issued in favor of Mrs. Samina Jaffar and five other girls who were appointed after having received training in Batch No,278, Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court, pointed out that more than 200 posts are presently lying vacant and 40 crew members have been appointed on contract basis due to acute shortage of staff by ignoring the appellants who had completed their training and deserve preference over the new appointees. It is urged that once the appellants were selected and sent for training, their services could have only been terminated by invoking relevant provisions of P.I.A.C. Admn. Manual/P.I.A.C. Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985 and they could not have been refused posting on flimsy grounds having no sanctity of law. It is argued that the P.I.A.C. Being autonomous corporation must act fairly, justly, reasonably and in a transparent manner but on the contrary, P.I.A.C. Has taken the action impugned in an arbitrary, capricious and whimsical way without application of independent mind but in a haphazard manner.
4. Mr. Muhammad Yawar Ali, learned Advocate Supreme Court appeared on behalf of P.I.A.C.
(respondent) and strenuously controverted the view point of Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of appellants with the submission that impugned order being well based does not warrant interference. It is submitted that the writ petitions preferred on behalf of appellants were not maintainable and they should have approached the learned Service Tribunal for the redressal of their grievances in view of the provisions as contained in section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act. It is also contended that the appellants were not aggrieved parties as contemplated in Article 199 of the Constitution because no vested legal right whatsoever was accrued in their favor and hence the question of its implementation or infringement does not arise.
It is contended that pursuant to advertisement made of the posts of Flight Stewards, the appellants were called upon to report for completion of certain necessary formalities but such invitation does not amount to confer Any legal right upon the appellants. It is urged with firmness that no appointment letter whatsoever was issued in favor of the appellants and they were never posted against the vacancies of Flight Steward. The learned Advocate Supreme Court has mentioned the letter, dated 14-3-1996, which according to him could not be equated with that of "appointment or posting" but on the contrary it dealt with certain procedural requirements and process of consideration for appointment of Flight Stewards. It is argued that on thorough scrutiny of applications submitted by the appellants, they were not found eligible for such appointments and they were informed accordingly by means of letter, dated 28-3-1997 which was subsequently withdrawn on the direction of the Honourable Supreme Court and after completion of mandatory formalities the action impugned was taken. It is stressed time and again by the learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of P.I.A.C. That the appellants had no guaranteed fundamental or legal right, hence, the question of violation of provisions as contained in Article 4 or 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, does not arise. It is also contended that merely on the basis of conjectural presumptions and wishful thinking, it cannot be inferred that the appellants were appointed as Flight Stewards. It is also mentioned that since the appellants were never appointed as Flight Steward, therefore, the question of compliance of relevant provisions of P.I.A. Admn.
Manual/P. I.A.C. Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985 does not arise. It is also mentioned that only the deserving and eligible candidates were appointed as Flight Stewards and moreso, the question of assessm ent of suitability falls within the exclusive domain of P.I.A.C. It is argued that it was not for the appellants to assess their suitability but it was for the P.I.A.C. To determine as to whether they were suitable for the job or otherwise and P.I.A.C. Being autonomous corporation cannot be compelled to make such appointments. It is also pointed out that no evidence could be produced showing that the action impugned was discriminatory.
5. We have carefully examined the respective contentions of the parties in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. We have also minutely perused the judgment impugned.
After having gone through the entire record of the case, we feel that the pivotal question which needs determination would be as to whether the appellants have ever been appointed as Flight Steward or otherwise? Before this aspect of the matter could be adverted to, it seems appropriate to examine the documents relied upon by the appellants in support of their claim that they were appointed as Flight Steward by the P.I.A.C. It must be kept in view that consideration for appointment and factual appointment is not synonymous or interchangeable terms. The first letter relied upon by the appellants is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:--- "Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Employment Section 65-1/B, Muhammad Ali Housing Society, Karachi.
' EMP: REC:J.O.3078/95 14 March, 1996.
' Subject: Offer for Employment, in P.I.A.C.
' Dear Sir/Madam,
(1) Reference your application requesting for employment in , P.I.A.C. As Flight Steward, Pay Group IV. We are pleased to inform you that on scrutiny of your application you have been considered for appointment. However, your employment will be subject to the following conditions:-- ' Assessm ent by selection board for suitability.
' Medical fitness/physical specification.
' Security clearance/police verification from appropriate authority Release certificate from previous employer if any ' Your service will be governed under the terms and conditions as laid down in the P.I.A.C. Admin Manual/P.I.A.C. Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations 1985 and orders/ instructions issued by the Management from time to time.
' Your appointment is liable to be terminated if any certificate submitted or produced by you is found to be false at any stage.
' Your service will be liable to termination, if at any stage any adverse report or information is received about your antecedents, conduct or behavior from your former employer, police department. Or any other agency/authority.
(2) You are advised to report to Manager Employment P.I.A.C. On the above address on 19th March, 1996 at 1000 Hours.
(3) Please bring along original testimonials, NIC Card, Domicile Certificate, TA/DA not admissible.
Yours faithfully, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation"
' A bare perusal of the above mentioned letter would indicate that it is an offer simplicitor as is indicative from the subject of the letter i,e, Offer For Employment of P.I.A.C. The above mentioned "Offer" cannot be equated to that of "appointment". The letter reflects that the appellants were advised to report the Manager Employment P.I.A.C. For further action. In our view, the procedural formalities were completed by the above mentioned letter and it has got no concern with actual appointment.
6. The second letter which has been relied upon by the learned Advocate Supreme Court heavily on behalf of appellants, was addressed to them on 19-8-1996 which is reproduced herein below for ready reference: "Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Manpower Planning Division Employment Section.
' 65-1/B, Muhammad Ali Housing Society, Karachi ' No,EMP: PLC: 05:30:96 Dated 19th August, 1996 ' Subject: Offer for Employment in P.I.A. As Trainee Flight Steward.
' Dear Sir,
1. We are pleased to inform you that you have been selected as. Trainee Flight Steward. Your selection will be subject to the following terms and conditions:---
(a) During training as Trainee Flight Steward you will be paid stipend of Rs,1575 p.m.
(b) You will be required to execute a bond to serve P.I.A. For a period of 5 years commencing after successful completion of training.
(c) On completion of training you will be appointed in Pay Group IV in the Scale of Rs,2575-170- 3425 along with other allowances and benefits as per rules of the Corporation. (Emphasis provided).
' Other terms and conditions
(i) Your employment in the Corporation will be subject to; Medical Fitness.
' Security clearance/police verification from appropriate authority.
' Release certificate from previous employer, if any.
' Production of domicile certificate and any other documents if required.
(ii) Your service will be governed under the terms and conditions as laid down in the P.I.A. Admn.
Manual/P.I.A.C. Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations and orders/instructions issued by the Management from time to time.
(iii) Your appointment is liable to be terminated if your domicile and/or any certificate submitted or produced by you is found to be false at any stage.
(iv) Your service will be liable to be termination, if at any stage, any adverse report or information is received about your antecedents, conduct or behavior from your former employer, Police Department. Or any other agency/authority.
(2) If the offer is acceptable to you, please report to P.I.A. Employment Officer, 65-1/B, Muhammad Ali Housing Society, Karachi.
Within two weeks for completion of employment formalities, failing which this offer will stand cancelled.
(3) Please bring along original testimonials, including Matriculation certificate, domicile certificate and six recent passport size photograph's.
(4) After completion of all employment formalities, you will be required to undergo Flight Service Training commencing from 13-10-1996 at P.I.A. Training Centre, Karachi.
' Yours faithfully, ' (Sd.) Asstt. Manager Employment"
7. We have carefully examined contents of the said letter as the same has been referred time and again by Mr, Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of appellants.
Clause 'C' of the above mentioned letter is demonstrative of the fact that the Offer for Employment in P.I.A.C. As Trainee Flight Steward was subject to completion of training. This letter by no stretch of imagination can be considered as an appointment letter and the subject of the letter also removes doubt if any and makes it abundant clear that it was an offer for employment in P.I.A.C. As Trainee Flight Steward. No doubt that prior to issuance of the above-mentioned letter, the appellants reported for their reassessm ent in the office of Manager Employment P.I.A.C. Pursuant to letter No, EMP-PLC -05-30/96, dated 25-5-1996 but it would have no substantial bearing on merits of the case. Now here at this juncture the question would arise as to whether the training was ever completed or otherwise? Nothing could be produced on record showing that the appellants had completed the training in question successfully and thereafter, they were provided with the uniforms. It may not be out of place to mention here that merely by providing uniforms no inference can be drawn qua their appointments. Even if it is admitted for the sake of argument that they had completed their training but yet the question would be as they were ever appointed pursuant to the completion of said training? The answer would be in negative. At the best, factum of training can be considered as one of the pre-requisite for such appointment. The scrutiny of record reflects that no passing out ceremony was conducted and no certificate to the effect that the training was completed successfully was ever awarded to the appellants. It has been admitted in the written arguments furnished by Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of appellants that no passing out ceremony could be held due to certain reasons. The appellants were never appointed as Flight Steward but admittedly they were selected as a Trainee Flight Steward on the basis whereof it could not be inferred that they were in fact appointed as Flight Steward. There is a difference between a "Trainee Flight Steward" and a "Regular Appointee as Flight Steward". A line of distinction is to be drawn between a "Regular Appointed Flight Steward" and that of a "Trainee Flight Steward". The appellants were informed by means of letter, dated 4-6- 1997 that as a result of review of the relevant record, the appellants could not be inducted as Flight Steward because their selection was made due to political pressure at the relevant time which was irregular. It mainly prevailed upon the P.I.A.C. That selection of the appellants was not transparent but was made under political pressure which was in violation of the dictum as laid down by this Court in the case "Abdul Jabbar Member: In re )1996 SCMR 1349" The P.I.A.C. Had given the following reasons for non-induction of the appellants in P.I.A.C. : "Subject: Selection as Trainee Flight Steward in notice for non-induction in service of P.I.A. And personal hearing.
Dear Sir, ' This has reference to your Civil Appeal No,1425/97 before the Supreme Court of Pakistan which was disposed of on 16th March, 1998.
(2) In terms of the order, dated 16th March, 1998, of the Honorable Supreme Court Notice No,EMP.
PLC.UT. 2781/97, dated 28-3-1997 issued to you on behalf of P.I.A. Was treated to have, been withdrawn.
(3) Your case has been reviewed by the competent authority in accordance with law. It has been observed that you were selected as Trainee Flight Steward without submitting a formal application by you in response to an advertisement, dated 27-7-1995 whereby applications were solicited against P.O. Box No,3078, Karachi Airport-75200.
(4) It was an unusual advertisement whereby the name of P.I.A. Was withheld and instead a P.O.
Box No, was to favor the favorites whose candidature was supported by extraneous presence.
(5) You were assessed on 22nd April, 1996 by the Selection Board and found minimally acceptable and marginally below standard required for position of Flight Steward. According to the report of Grooming Officer you were under weight by 9 pounds. Yet an Offer No, EMP. REG. J.O. 3078, dated 14th March, 1996, was made to you informing you that you had been selected as a Trainee Flight Steward.
(6) It was, inter alia, stipulated that upon successful completion of training you will be appointed as a Flight Steward.
(7) It was understood that such appointment was subject to availability of a properly approved vacancy.
(8) That after selection as a Trainee Flight Steward you were sent to training at the P.I.A. Training Centre where your performance was not entirely satisfactory.
(9) In the meanwhile, P.I.A. Has received a binding directive from the Federal Government whereby an embargo on fresh recruitment has been imposed.
(10) Further, the manpower requirements and Human Resources Budget has been re-evaluated and at present there are no vacancies of Flight Stewards against which you may be considered for appointment on merits. Moreover, there are reasons to believe that your selection was irregular.
(11) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the competent authority has decided not to appoint you as a Flight Steward in P.I.A. This Notice is accordingly being issued to you to apprise you of the reasons for the said decision.
(12) In case you are aggrieved by the said decision of the competent authority you may explain within three days of the receipt of this notice as to why they said decision should not be maintained. If no explanation is received from you within the prescribed time it will be presumed that either you have no explanation to submit or you do not wish to submit an explanation.
(13) If you wish to explain your position in person, you are also allowed a hearing with the Director Administration on 17th December, 1998, at 1500 in his office located in P.I.A. Head Office Karachi. In case you do not make yourself available for the personal hearing being offered to you it will be presumed that you do not wish to avail it. (Emphasis provided).
' By order of the competent authority, (Sd.) Yours faithfully, For Pakistan International Airlines Corp."
8. There is no rebuttal on behalf of appellants that they had not routed their applications through the Prime Minister Secretariat and it was not pursuant to regular advertisement made by the P.I.A.C.
It is to be noted that on 4-6-1999, the appellants were finally informed for non-induction in service after completion of all mandatory formalities such as show-cause notices and opportunity of personal hearing in the following terms:--- "Non-induction in service.
(1) Reference Notice for non-induction in service and personal hearing issued to you vide EMP.
PLC.UT-2781/98, dated 3rd December, 1998.
(2) Your reply, dated 16-12-1998 in response to the above mentioned Notice was considered and evaluated by the Competent Authority and it was not found satisfactory. However, with a view to giving you a fair opportunity to explain your position, you were afforded opportunity of personal hearing on 11-1-1999 before Director Administration, who is the competent Authority. You did not avail this opportunity and remained absent.
(3) After looking into the reasons given in the subject notice, your reply to the notice and personal record, the competent Authority has decided not to induct you as a Flight Steward in the service of P.I.A.C.
(4) We thank you for your interest to serve P.I.A., and wish to advise you that as and when the vacancies of Flight Steward are advertised in the national press, you may apply for the same provided you meet the prescribed specification and compete on merit. (Emphasis provided).
(Sd.) Z.A. Ansari, Manager Employment."
' It is to be noted that an option was given to the appellants to compete for such posts subject to prescribed specification and they were further advised to compete on merits. It is case of the appellants that subsequent to their selection as Flight Steward, a number of advertisements were made for the vacant vacancies of Flight Steward but they had not availed the opportunity and did not prefer to contest on merits.
9. The second important question which needs determination would be as to whether any vested or legal right whatsoever was accrued in favor of the appellants and whether it was infringed due to their non-appointment as Flight Steward? After having gone through the entire record of the case and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that no vested or legal right whatsoever was accrued in favor of the appellants; hence the question of its infringement does not arise. It is well-settled by now that unless it is established beyond any doubt that a person has guaranteed fundamental or legal right in his favor, causing of legal injury or loss does not arise. In this regard reference can be made to the cases of "Asad Ali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1998 SC 161 and Liaquat Hussain v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1999 SC 504". There is no cavil with the proposition that "the right which is the foundation of an application under Article 199 is a personal and individual right. The legal right may be a statutory right or a right recognized by the law. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by some one who has a legal duty to perform relating to the right. There must not only be a right but a justiciable right in existence, to give jurisdiction to the High Court in the matter. Unless whatever right, personal or otherwise, on which the application is based is established, no order can issued under Art.199. Muntizma Committee v. Director K.A. PLD 1992 Kar.54, Mahmoona v. Ham Din PLD 1984 Lah. 228, Assam Fisheries Farms and Industries Ltd. v. The Development Commissioner Assam and others AIR 1953 Assam 155 and Mehboob Khan v. Deputy Commissioner Lakhimpur and others AIR 1953 Assam 145" The documents relied upon by the appellants have been discussed in the preceding paragraphs. No legal right whatsoever was conferred upon the appellants as an offer simplicitor for the appointment of Flight Steward was given for which completion of training was sine qua non which could not be completed. It hardly needs any elaboration that assessment of suitability for appointment being subjective assessment exclusively falls within the jurisdictional domain of appointing authority which cannot be compelled to make any appointment. The exercise of discretion, if it is fair and transparent cannot be justiciable in the absence of any mala fide which though was alleged but could not be substantiated by producing any cogent and concrete evidence. We are conscious of the fact, as it is a well-entrenched legal proposition that an action which is mala fide or colourable is not regarded as action in accordance with law.
Similarly, action taken upon extraneous or irrelevant considerations is also not action in accordance with law. Therefore, action taken upon no ground at all or without proper application of the mind of an authority would also not qualify as an action in accordance with law and would, therefore, have to be struck down as being taken in an unlawful manner. The State v. Zia-ur- Rehman PLD 1973 SC 49 and Government of West Pakistan v. Begum Agha Abdul Karim Shorish Kashmiri PLD 1969 SC 14".As mentioned hereinabove, the action taken by the P.I.A.C. neither can be considered as mala fide nor discriminatory as cogent reasons have been given by the P.I.A.C. For non-induction of the appellants which have been discussed in preceding paragraphs. There is no violation of the provisions as contained in Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan as "equality of citizens" does not mean that all laws must apply to all the subjects or that all subjects must have the same J rights and liabilities. The conception of equality before the law does not involve the idea of absolute equality among human beings which is a physical impossibility. The Article guarantees a similarity of treatment and not identical treatment. The protection of equal laws does not mean that all laws must be uniform. It means that among equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that the like should be treated alike, and that there should be no denial of any special privilege by reason of birth, creed or the like and also equal subjection of all individuals and classes to the ordinary law of the land." "Gul Khan v.
Government of Balochistan PLD 1989 Quetta 8. In fact the provisions contained in Article 25 would not be applicable as P.I.A.C. Being autonomous corporation cannot be forced to make employment which otherwise is not, in the interest of corporation or has adverse effects on its commercial position.
10. We are not impressed by the contention of Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, learned counsel for the appellants that it is a case of sheer discrimination because discrimination always involve an element of unfairness and bias and it is in that sense that the expression has to be understood. The factum of bias could not be substantiated by any convincing evidence. We may mention here that a Court of Law cannot exercise unfettered or unrestricted powers to administer supposed equity not based on justiciable foundation and it must be satisfied before exercising its power that some illegal wrong has been inflicted or is about to be inflicted on the appellants. In this regard reference can be made to the cases of "Manjula v. D.P.I. AIR 1952 Orissa 344; Siddiq Ahmad v. Estate Officer, Government of Pakistan PLD 1957 (W.P.) Kar. 887; Jeshingbhai Ishwarlal v. Emperor AIR 37 1950 Bom.
363; Bagaram Tuloule v. The State of Bihar AIR 1950 Patna 387; Harnam Singh v. The State of Punjab AIR 1952 Punj. 76 and Badri Prasad v. President, District Board, Mirzapur AIR 1952 All. 681". It is also well established by now that before invocation of Constitutional jurisdiction as has been done by the appellants, it must be shown that they had got a clear legal right as not to admit of a reasonable doubt or controversy. M The question as to whether the training was completed or not, uniforms were provided or not, passing out parade was held or not, applications were moved through back door or not, are the questions of fact which cannot be determined in Constitutional jurisdiction.
"Khairuddin v. Settlement Commissioner 1988 SCMR 988". The object of the proceeding initiated under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is the enforcement of a right and not the establishment of legal right and therefore, the right of the incumbent concerned which he seeks to enforce, must not only be clear and complete but simplicitor. There must be an actual infringement of the right. If any authority is required, reference can be made "Kandaswamy and others v. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Coimbatore and another AIR 1954 Madras 348". We may mention here that "a vested right is free from contingencies, but not in the sense that it is exercisable anywhere and at any moment. There is hardly any right which can be so exercised.
There must always be occasions at which and circumstances under which they may be exercised, but are the peculiar characteristics of those rights. "Zaman Cement Company (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Central Board of Revenue 2002 SCMR 312". The appellants have failed to establish their legal right for appointment as Flight Steward and therefore, the question of its infringement does not arise.
11. We have also adverted to the question as to whether order passed by this Court on 16-3-1998 has been complied with in letter and spirit? The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- "Mr. Mujeeb's main contention was that in the termination notice it has been alleged that appointments of the appellants were irregular and due to political pressure at the relevant time.
According to him this amounts to condemning appellants without hearing them. Mr. Muhammad Alam, Law Officer, P.I.A., submitted that P.I.A.C. Was already overstaffed, the appellants were not given the posting and the contract between the appellants and respondents were terminated.
However, he also submitted that P.I.A.C. Would be willing to withdraw impugned notices and would take fresh action in accordance with law. The above statement of Mr. Muhammad Alam seems to be reasonable. The impugned notices are treated to have been withdrawn and P.I.A.C. Will take fresh action in accordance with law. There appeals are disposed of accordingly."
' A bare perusal of the verdict of this Court given on 16-3-1998, relevant portion whereof has been reproduced hereinabove, would show that P.I.A.C. Was directed to complete necessary and mandatory formalities and the notices impugned were treated to have been withdrawn. P.I.A.C.
Was also directed to take fresh action in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said direction, fresh show-cause notices were issued and opportunity of hearing was also afforded. If the appellants had not availed the opportunity of personal hearing, it does not amount to non-compliance of the said judgment. A. Careful scrutiny of the available record including the show-cause notices and final order regarding non-induction of the appellants as Flight Steward would show that the order passed by this Court on 16-3-1998 has been complied with. The letter, dated 4-2-1999 addressed to the appellants by the Manager Employment, would further reveal that fresh action was initiated in accordance with the directions as enumerated in order, dated 16-3-1998 passed by this Court. The contents of said letter are indicative of the fact' that the cases of the appellants were examined thoroughly with diligent application of mind and it cannot be said that P.I.A.C. Has not complied with the direction of this Court.
12. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appellants had no legal right to be appointed as Flight Steward. The judgment impugned being well-based does not warrant interference. Before parting with the judgment, we may observe that it is an admitted feature of the case that the appellants had undergone selection' procedure and also sent for professional training of Flight Steward and also paid stipend by the P.I.A.C. And moreso, certain candidates were subsequently inducted in P.I.A.C. As Flight Steward as pointed out by Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of the appellants and went unrequited. It would be in the interest of justice, fairplay and equity, if the cases of the appellants are considered on humanitarian grounds as fresh candidates subject to completion of all legal formalities. It is worth-mentioning that no action whatsoever was taken against the functionaries of P.I.A.C. By whom selection of the appellants was made and huge amount was spent on their training and for making such an irregular and unlawful exercise, merely on the directions of Prime Minister Secretariat, having no legal sanctity behind it.
13. The appeals being devoid of merits are dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
…and 15 more citing cases