' SHEZADA MAZHAR, J.--- The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed in District Public School and College, Depalpur District, Okara (DPS and College) on 17-12-1996. On his performance he was promoted as Lecturer Chemistry by the respondents vide letter dated 1-4-2004. The petitioner was further promoted as Assistant Professor in March, 2010. The petitioner was appointed as Controller of Examination of Board of Examination of all campuses of DPS and College, Okara on 6-9-2010. He was performing his duties as Controller of Examination when on 9-5-2012 his services were terminated by the order of District Coordination Officer/Chairman, Board of Governors (BOG), Okara. The petitioner filed representation before the Chairman, BOG who, vide order dated 1-2-2013 accepted the representation and the petitioner was re-instated on 1-2-2013. The order of the; Chairman, BOG, dated 1-2-2013 was examined by the BOG in its meeting, held on 30-5-2013, wherein it was held that the DCO was not competent to review the order passed by his predecessor and therefore re,-instatement in service was disapproved by the BOG unanimously.
This order/decision of the BOG is challenged before this Court in the present writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order/decision, dated 30-5-2013, is of no legal effect and violative of principle of audi alteram partem and the same is liable to be set aside.
Learned counsel submits that respondent No,1 himself admitted that remedy of appeal is not provided to the petitioner before the respondent No,1 against the original termination order dated 9-5-2012, and in this manner, the respondent No,1 has also no authority whatsoever to set aside the re-instatement order dated 1-2-2013. Learned counsel referred to the decisions of the Chairman BOG who re-instated the teachers on filing representation and submits that the DCO had the power to do so. It was further submitted that clause 6 of the appointment order dated 6-8-2010 whereby the petitioner wars appointed Controller of Examination clearly states that BOG can repatriate services to his parent school and therefore the respondent could repaitriate the services but cannot terminate the same.
3. Learned A.A.-G. on behalf of the respondents submits that present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner was working in DPS and College, Okara which is neither a statutory body nor has any statutory rules and therefore the relationship between the employer and employee was of Master and Servant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal has relied upon the judgment reported as Muhammad Zubair Akram v.Aitcheson College, Lahore (PLD 2000 Lahore 489) and submitted that as the BOG of DPS end Colleges is under dominative control of the government officials therefore this court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition.
5. I have gone through the judgment reported in PLD 2000 Lahore 489 and have found that the facts of the said case are totally different than the case in hand. Aitcheson College was established under Societies Registration Act, 1860 and was taken over under Martial Law Order No,86 where under Governor of the then West Pakistan issued notification whereby management was removed and a Board of Governors was appointed. It is on the basis of above facts that it was held that society/college was being managed and governed under the statutes framed in pursuance of a Martial Law Order No,86, therefore writ jurisdiction was held to be applicable.
6. In the case in hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has not placed on record any law under which the Board of Governors was established except the Governing Charter of District Public School and College, Okara, 2010 attached as Annexure "G" to the writ petition. The said Charter has no statutory value. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not referred any notification/rule/law whereby the said Board of Governors was established which brings the District Puoric Schools and Colleges under the ambit of "Person" as held in the referred judgment, therefore, the judgment referred is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
7. Further, bare reading of Charter of the District Public Schools and Colleges reveals that the said schools and colleges does not fall within the definition of "Person" connected with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority as given in Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Therefore the writ petition before this Court does not lie and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.