1. ' RAFIULLAH SULTANI, J.--- The above-captioned petitions have common question of law and facts, which are being disposed of through this single judgment.
2. ' These writ petitions are addressed under section-44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974.
3. ' Brief facts giving rise to the instant Writ Petition No,47 of 20o4 as alleged are that pro forma- respondent (AJ&K Government) launched a department project known as "project for the acquisition of land and construction of additional class rooms with 202 existing middle schools" with the financial aid of the OPEC through the real respondents. Initially some technical officers were transferred on deputation while some were inducted through direct recruitment. Later on, more technical staff was needed to be recruited, resultantly in response to the advertisement, the petitioner and others applied for the same. After due course of law the appointment of the petitioner was made by respondent No,1 on the recommendation of respective Section Committee.
4. It is alleged that staff, including staff of the said project was transferred to another project known as Northern Education Project through Notification of the Government on 1-7-1999. It was decided on the basis of agreement of the respondents with finance department that technical staff should gradually be shifted to the normal budget of the Government. It is further alleged that respondent No,1 presented a summary to the Chief Executive (the Prime Minister of the time) requesting for shifting of the technical staff of Education Department on the normal budget of the Government, who had approved the same on 17-6-1997 but regular Notification has not been issued by the concerned department within a reasonable time. Respondent No,2 moved a summary for shifting of total staff including technical staff of the construction wing of the Education Department on the normal budget, which was endorsed and concurred by respondent No,1 accordingly. The separate proposal were also addressed to the Finance Department as well as planning 'department so that after obtaining their approval, the requisite Notification could be issued in furtherance of which respondent No,1 has again proposed the shifting of technical staff on normal budget of the Government vide summary dated 24-5-2003 and 31-5-2003 respectively while the Home Secretariat has also concurred with the said proposal. It is further alleged that on the other hand, 2nd phase of Northern Education Project was also initiated to be launched within a period of 2 months a concept paper wherefor has already been finalized. Respondents in numerous other cases of similar nature have already been notified about the shifting of staff on normal budget.
5. Respondent No,2 initiated the proceedings of proposal for the removal from service of technical staff of Northern Education Project, the said staff filed a writ petition before this Court, which was ultimately issued as prayed for in case titled Irfan Hameed and others v. Secretary Education and others. It is further alleged that Government through a Notification dated 17-1-2002 created certain new vacancies so as to meet the requirement of the new scheme known as 83 middle schools, the petitioner was transferred against one of the same and posted at District Sudhnoti. After that the charge of the post of sub divisional office Kotli was also handed over to the petitioner. The period of positing of the staff of 83 middle schools scheme was extended up till June 2004 and the name of the petitioner was omitted from the relevant list of employees despite that petitioner was also at the strength of said scheme. The petitioner has been deprived from the salaries despite rendering his service as usual on account of that his name does not figure in the list of employees whose period of contract has been extended. The petitioner also deserves to be treated like with the rest of the numbers of the staff of NEP, is entitled to the benefit awarded to the petitioners in the Irfan Hameed's case and is liable to be shifted on the normal budget in addition to be taken and carried over to the phase 2nd of the NEP because he is basically the employee of NEP with additional responsibilities of carrying out the purpose of the rest of scheme including 83 middle schools. In prayer clause a direction is sought against the respondents to act upon and implement the directive of the Chief Executive (Prime Minister) dated 17-6-1997 in terms of the issuance of the requisite Notification and shifted the petitioner to the normal budget of the Government. A further direction is sought to treat the petitioner as an employee of 2nd phase of the NEP and restrain them to make the fresh induction in the said 2nd phase of NEP in violation of their commitment with the World Bank and other donor agencies as well as their own proposals. The facts of the rest of the petitions are same except the writ petitions titled Qasim Khan v. Secretary Education and others , Zafar Iqbal v. Secretary Education and others, Muhammad Javaid v. Secretary Education and others, Fazal-ur-Rehman v. Secretary Education 7 others and Muhammad Jamil v. Secretary Education and others which were amended and their prayer clause is different from the instant writ petition. It is claimed in the prayer clause of the afore-said petitions that proceedings initiated through the impugned letter dated 29-8-2003 be quashed while declaring the proposed act of the respondents as discriminate, arbitrary, mala fide, against the fundamental rights and being violative of the principles of good governance and the respondents be restrained and prohibited further to oust the petitioners from their service. A further direction is sought against the respondents that they must arrange the issuance of the requisite Notification for shifting of the petitioners to normal budget in pursuance of the earlier decisions of the Government and the recommendations of the respondents themselves. In all the above-captioned petitions, the written statements were submitted by the respondents in which they negated the allegations levelled in petitions and pleaded that petitioners have no locus standi to file the present writ petitions. It is also pleaded that temporary appointments cannot be protected in exercise of writ jurisdiction and petitioners were appointed in Northern Education Project on temporary basis and their services were against the project, the said project was completed on 30-9-2003 and their service is no more after the said date.
6. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds mentioned in writ petitions and further contended that petitioners have been appointed after due course of law and some of the appointments, have been protected by this Court in the case titled Irfan Hameed v. Secretary Education and others and which was upheld by the Hon'ble apex Court. It is further contended that ouster of the petitioners from their jobs is violative of the fundamental rights and against the principles of good governance. It is contended that at this stage to deprive the petitioners from their services when they are over aged and have no alternate source of livelihood and are not in position to get any other reasonable job. It is contended that employees of other development schemes of the Government have been brought on normal budget and keeping in view the said policy on the basis of equality, the petitioners are also deserve to be brought on normal budget of government. In support of his version, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the case titled Irfan Hameed v. Secretary Education & others, decided by this Court on 30-10-2003.
7. While controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Advocate-General contended that the petitioners were appointed in service against the posts which were temporary in nature. The temporary appointments cannot be protected to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is next argued that the services of the petitioners were against the project and the project was completed on 30-9-2003 and their services were no more after the said date. It is further contended that service on contract basis does not confer any right to the petitioners and they have no locus standi to file the instant writ petitions, which are not maintainable in the eye of law. It is next argued that Irfan Hameed's case is not applicable on the present writ petitions.
8. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the available record of the case carefully.
9. It is evident from the record of the case that appointments of the petitioners have been made against the posts, which were temporary in nature and on contract basis vide Notification dated 6- 6-1996, which is marked as Annexure "A" on the file. The services of the petitioners were against the project and the said project was completed on 30-9-2003. Now, the petitioners are claiming to quash the proceedings initiated through the impugned letters dated 30-8-2003 and declaring the proposed act of the respondents as discriminatry, arbitrary, mala fide,against the fundamental rights and a direction to the respondents be restrained and prohibited further to oust the petitioner from their services. A further direction is sought by the petitioners against the respondents that they must arrange the issuance of requisite Notification for shifting of the petitioners to the normal budget in pursuance of earlier decisions of the Government as well as the approval of the Chief Executive dated 24-1-2006 accorded by him on a duly processed summary and the recommendations of the respondents themselves. All the objections and legal points raised in the instant writ petition before me by the learned counsel for the parties were raised in case titled Ch. Muhammad Sharif v. Azad Government and others, decided by this Court on 4-7-2008 and the said judgment was upheld by the honourable apex Court on 25-8-2008. The controversy has been resolved by the honourable apex Court in afore-said case of its judgment at page-4 of its judgment in following manner:--- "(5) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and have given my utmost muse to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. A contemplate perusal of the record shows that the writ petition was dismissed on 4-7-2008 by the learned single Judge of the High Court and on 5-7-2008 the following order was passed: "During the period of placement of Mr. Ch. Muhammad Sharif, as Sector Coordinator (Health), EEAP, his overall performance and conduct have been assessed/ evaluated as unsatisfactory by project authorities. Therefore, the Chairman, Program Steering Committee/competent authority, in compliance with the aforementioned direction of the honourable High Court of AJ&K, exercising the powers conferred upon him by ERRA vide No,4-15/7-ERRA (SPC) dated 27-3-2008 has been pleased to terminate Mr. Ch. Muhammad Sharif, Sector Coordinator, Health, Health- EEAP from service with immediate effect."
(6) According to the aforesaid order, the performance and conduct of the petitioner was found unsatisfactory by the project authorities therefore his services were terminated by the department on 5-7-2008 while the present petition for leave to appeal was filed on 7-7-2008. When this petition for leave to appeal was filed, at that time the petitioner was no more in service, It is also pertinent to note that no one can be compelled to enter into an agreement with a particular person. The High Court has no jurisdiction under section 44 of the AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974 to compel a person to enter into agreement with the other person. There is no such law under which the non- petitioners were bound to extend the contract of the petitioner. It was entirely discretion of the non- petitioners to extend the contract of the petitioner or not. When the petitioner was appointed for the period of one year, then he has no right for extension of his contract. Even otherwise, the order whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated contained that his conduct was found unsatisfactory and therefore the Authorities did not find him suitable and did not extend the contract. By refusing to extend the contract, no violation of any rule and regulation has been committed by the non-petitioners. Therefore, the High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition in limine. Thus, finding no force in this petition for leave to appeal it is hereby dismissed."
10. Even otherwise, the services of the petitioners are to be governed under contract as stated in earlier part of judgment and contract employment contains specific terms and conditions of service under a contract which are different from the general terms and conditions of services of non-contract employees. Contract employees cannot invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 against the termination of their service in accordance with specific terms and conditions of service contained in the contract. For proper perception, here I would like to reproduce the initial appointment order of petitioner dated 6-6-1996, which reads as under:--- {{URDU TEXT}} Bare reading of the above-mentioned Notification reveals that appointments of the petitioners were temporary in nature and do not create any legal right in favour of the petitioner to be brought their jobs on permanent basis aecording to normal budget of the Government. General terms and conditions of non-contract employees would not apply on contract employees. The contract in the instant writ petitions excludes the general terms and conditions of permanent employees and in the instant petitions those terms and conditions to be applied under the contract which the petitioners had agreed upon and joined the service. It is pertinent to note that Islam ordains that a contract is to be followed as it was intended at the time of agreement between the parties and when the contract has been acted upon then either party cannot claim contrary to what he has been accepted by executing the said contract. Petitioners are not in position to be escaped from the specific terms and conditions of contract, which was agreed between the parties at the time of joining the service.
11. ' In view of the reasons listed above, I do not find any force in these constitutional petitions, therefore the same 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.