' SHAJ-IID BILAL HASSAN, J.--- Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has sought indulgence of this Court while calling in question the office order dated 11-4-2008 issued by the University of the Punjab, Lahore, relieving the petitioner from the University services with immediate effect in compliance of directive dated 10-4-2008 issued by the Services and General Administration Department, Government of Punjab, Lahore, which according to the petitioner, are without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. Factually speaking, stance of the petitioner in this writ petition is to the effect that he joined the College of Information Technology of the respondent/University as a teacher on contract basis in the year 2001, where-after he was appointed as Assistant Professor in the same Institute and ever since he had been serving the University. Thereafter, vide office Order No,97- 84-Est.II dated 10-1- 2008, the petitioner was appointed as Director Administration on contract basis against a vacant post with immediate effect on terms and conditions mentioned in the said office order issued by the respondent/University. After a period of approximately three months, the petitioner received office order issued by the Deputy Registrar (Admin-II) bearing No,10873-82/Est.11 dated 11-4-2008 on the basis of which and while complying with the directive from the Deputy Secretary (Services), Government of the Punjab, Services and General Administration Department, Lahore vide letter No,SI-2-35/2000 dated 10-4-2008, the Vice-Chancellor of the University in exercise of powers vested in him under section 15 subsection (3) of the Punjab University Act, 1973 relieved the petitioner from the University services with immediate effect while holding that the petitioner would be entitled to one month's salary in lieu of one month quitting of service notice as per terms and conditions of his appointment. The said office order dated 11-4-2008 has been called into question by the petitioner through this constitutional petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the respondent/University in compliance with the directive of the Government of the Punjab dated 10- 4-2008 is not sustainable under any circumstances as the University is not under the administrative control or supervision of the Services and General Administration Department of the Government of Punjab and resultantly directive issued by the Government is not binding on the University being governed by an independent statute i,e, University of the Punjab Act, 1973 and Rules and Regulations in this regard. The learned counsel further adds that the petitioner could not have been relieved from his services in terms of the procedure laid down in the University of the Punjab Act, 1973 which attracted the petitioner's case. Adds that for all intents and purposes the petitioner was appointed on contract basis for a period of one year and under no circumstances services of the petitioner could be relieved after a period of two and half months and without assigning any reason in this regard. Learned counsel has contended that the order of relieving the petitioner is unlawful as the University ought to have issued notice to the petitioner which needful was not done and no opportunity of audience was given to the petitioner by the University authorities. Adds that the petitioner has obtained pre-mature retirement from the Navy and as such the petitioner has not attained the age of superannuation being born in the year 1955.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the directive which, according to the learned counsel, does not apply to the officers retired from the Navy. Relies on case of Munshi Tahir Zahoor v. Additional Secretary to Chief Justice (20006 PLC (C. S.) 101); Zonal Manager U.B.L. and another v. Mst. Parveen Akhtar (PLD 2007 SC 298); and Pakistan International Airlines Corporation through Chairman v. Shehzad Farooq Malik (2004 SCMR 158) .
4. While defending this petition by refuting the stance of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent/University has admitted that the petitioner was appointed as a teacher in the College of Information Technology of the University, whereafter the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in the same Institute. All the said appointments were on contract basis and finally vide order dated 10-1-2008 issued by the Vice-Chancellor of the University, the petitioner was appointed as Director Administration on contract basis with terms and conditions narrated in the said letter of appointment. It is the stance of the respondent that contract appointment of the petitioner could be terminated at any stage on one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and pursuant to the directive dated 10-4-2008 and shift in the University Policy with regards to the contract services of the petitioner along with other employees who were also employees on contract basis, were relieved on payment of one month pay in lieu of the requisite notice. Adds that the services of 34 contract employees including the petitioner were terminated who were serving the University after retiring from their concerned departments. It is the defence of the respondent/ University that the petitioner's termination of contract on one month notice or pay in lieu was duly in accordance with law and terms and conditions which were admitted by the petitioner. The petitioner being a contract employee cannot file this writ petition, which according to the University, merits dismissal.
Adds that the relationship of the University with its employees is that of master and servant and even otherwise the petitioner was not a regular employee of the respondent/University; therefore, he cannot avail the remedy so as to get his grievance redressed, if any, through this constitutional petition. It has been maintained by the University that the directive dated 10-4-2008 holds field and the same was complied with and even otherwise University had shifted its policy as it started resorting to regular services after observing due formalities in accordance with its Rules. The respondent has also stated that though there is a Statue that is governing the University but as a natural course, it is following the directions of the Provincial Government from time to time. The petitioner, therefore, according to the University has been relieved after following the requisite and lawful procedure. Lastly it has been prayed that this petition be dismissed.
5. We have, heard both the learned counsel at length and perused the record made available before us.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner retired from service of Pakistan Navy on 24-8-1997 and was given various contract appointments by the University/respondent. On 10-1-2008, the petitioner was appointed as Director Administration by the Vice-Chancellor of the University in exercise of his emergency powers. The terms and conditions contained in Office Order dated 10-1-2008 contained the following conditions:--
(1) The appointment is available for contract period only and terminable on one month's quit service notice or pay in lieu thereof from either side.
(2) .........................................................
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6) The appointment will be for one year renewable contract.
' The respondent/University on 11-4-2008 invoked the termination clause, ex facie, in compliance with the Government of the Punjab's letter dated 10-4-2008 and resultantly the petitioner was relieved from the University services subject to payment of one month's salary in lieu of the requisite notice. The University has filed its report and parawise comments to the writ petition and has maintained that the petitioner was not discriminated in any manner as the termination of the contract of the petitioner was without any stigma. Furthermore, admittedly being a contract employee, the relationship between the petitioner and the University is governed by the principle of 'Master and Servant' and the said service is not governed by any statutory Rules.
7. While opting this defence, the learned counsel for the University has contended that this petition is not competent under the law as the matter where services of an employee are not governed by any statutory rules, the principle of 'Master and Servant' is applicable, and therefore, writ petition is not competent. In support of this primary defence regarding maintainability reliance has been placed in the case of Abdul Rashid Khan v. Registrar Bahauddin Zakaria University Multan and others (2011 SCM R 944), wherein it has been held that, "Arts. 185(3) & 199--- Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court--- Educational institution---Non-statutory rules---Scope---petitioner was employee of University and invoked constitutional jurisdiction of High Court for implementation of office order in his favour with regard to vice versa transfer---Constitutional petition and Intra- Court Appeal filed by petitioner were concurrently dismissed by High Court--Validity University had no statutory rules, therefore, petitioner had no remedy before High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution---Supreme Court declined to take any exception to concurrent findings of two forums of law---Leave to appeal was refused."
In case of ljaz Hussain Suleri v. The Registrar and another (1999 SCMR 2381), it has been held that, "S.11-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Employees of University---Status---Such employees were neither holders of statutory posts nor their terms and conditions were governed by statutory rules---High. Court had rightly held that the Constitutional petition was not maintainable inasmuch as original order of the Chancellor was susceptible to examination in revision as contemplated by S.11-A of University of Punjab Act, 1973---Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances."
' In case of Usman Ghani and others v. Islamia University and others 2012 PLC (C.S.) 830 it has been held that, "Ss.15(3) & 11-A---Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art.199---Constitutional petition--- Duties and power of Syndicate---Appointment as Assistant Librarian on contract basis--- Petitioners were neither holding statutory posts nor their terms and conditions were governed by Statutory Rules---Lack of invoke constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Validity---There is no cavil to proposition that V. C. in exercise of his powers in terms of S.15(3) of Act has an authority to take any action, therefore, initial appointment of respondent on contract basis made by him cannot be termed as an order passed without any lawful authority---If aggrieved of any such order of authority could have availed efficacious remedy of revision before Chancellor--Writ petition was not maintainable when adequate remedy of revision under S.11-A of Act was available---Petitioners were neither holders of any statutory post nor their terms and conditions of their service were governed under Statutes, Regulations or Rules issued by Senate of University for its internal use, they lack any locus standi to invoke constitutional jurisdiction of High Court--- Petition was dismissed."
' In case of Pakistan Telecommunication Co. Ltd. through Chairman v. Iqbal Nasir and others (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 132), it has been held that, ".... Employees of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Limited were governed by principle of "Master and servant" and in absence of statutory rules, constitutional petitions filed by employees were not maintainable---All employees having entered into contract of service on the same or similar terms and conditions had no vested right to seek regularization of their employment, which was discretionary with the master-- -Master was within his right to retain or dispense with services of any employee on the basis of satisfactory or otherwise performance---Contract employees had no right to invoke constitutional jurisdiction, where their services were terminated on completion of period of contract---As all respondents were covered under the definition of workman, they were entitled to one month's notice or salary in lieu thereof, as permissible to them under the rule of master and servant--- Supreme Court set aside the judgment passed by High Court in favour of contract employees of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Limited---Appeal was allowed."
' In case of Pakistan International Airline Corporation and others v. Tanweer ur Rehman and others (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 676), it has been held that, " If any adverse action was taken by employer in violation of statutory rules, only then such action should be amenable to constitutional jurisdiction, but if such action had no backing of statutory rules then principle of 'Master and Servant' would be applicable and such employees had to seek remedy permissible before the court of competent jurisdiction--Rules laid down in the judgments of Supreme Court in Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam's case, reported as PLD 2006 SC 602 and Muhammad ldreees's case, reported as PLD 2007 SC 681, would be applicable to ordinary person filing petition by invoking jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution and he had to approach the court within a reasonable time---Although no definition of the expression "reasonable time" was available in any instrument of law, however the courts had interpreted it to be ninety days--- Pakistan International Airlines Corporation was performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation but since services of employees were governed by the contract executed between both the parties and not by statutory rules framed under S.30 of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956, with prior approval of Federal Government, therefore, they would be governed by the principle of 'Master and Servant'--- Appeal was disposed of accordingly."
' In I.C.A. No,282 of 2010, titled University of the Punjab through Vice-Chancellor and others v.
Muhammad Imran and others, this Court observed that, "The next controversy pertains to the seniority inter se the employees of the University. Admittedly, the employees of the University were neither holder of statutory posts nor their terms and conditions were governed by statutory rules as already declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in cases reported as 1992 SCMR 1093, 1999 SCMR 2381 and 2010 SCMR 1484. Therefore, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law whereby the learned Single Judge accepted the writ petition and directed the appellants to reckon the seniority of the respondents from the date of initial appointment and seniority list dated 13-1-2009 and consider them for promotion as Senior Clerk in preference to those who are junior to them. Moreover, the respondents have alternate remedy available with them."
' In case of University of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others v. Ch. Sardar All (1992 SCMR 1093), it has been held that, "The scheme of the University of the Punjab Act, 1973 otherwise does not show that the Rules of Efficiency and Discipline or the conditions of service of the employees are governed by the statutory rules. In the absence of it, subsection (8) of section 11 of the Act which relates to the manner in which the Chancellor shall act in the discharge of his duties, does not make the conditions of service of the employees statutory. All that subsection (8) of section 11 provides is that the Governor shall be bound by the advice of the Chief Minister as he is bound to discharge of his functions under Article 105 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Further, such an incorporation by reference on the strength of a statutory provision of a constitutional provision does not raise the status of the statutory provision to that of a constitutional provision."
' In case of Dr. M. Afzal Beg v. University of the Punjab and others (1999 PLC (C.S.) 60), it has been held that, "Petitioner was governed by non-statutory rules and principle of master and servant was attracted in his case. Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Article 199 could not be invoked"."
8. It has categorically been held in all the above cases that the status of the employees whose service is not governed by any statutory rules, the principle of "Master and Servant" is applicable and a writ petition was not competent. Moreover, in the judgment reported as "Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Azam Chattha (2013 SCM R 120)" the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has categorically held that where the services of contract employee are terminated before time, he can, at best, claims damages to the extent of unexpired period of his service. The ground of discrimination urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is baseless as it has not been substantiated in any respect. The University in its comments, has categorically maintained that it applied the Government of Punjab's letter dated 10-4-2008 across the board and services of all the employees covered thereby were dispensed with. No reason to disbelieve the stance of the University is discernable from the record; therefore, the ground so urged has no substance. It has also been urged on behalf of the petitioner's side that the University being an autonomous body was not bound by the directive issued by the Government of Punjab. In this regard, it suffices to say that it is for the University Administration to decide whether they were to follow the directions given by the Government of Punjab. University Authorities, in their wisdom opted to do so. It being a step in the right direction in as such as all postings/appointments should normally be made on regular basis after the publication and observance of necessary formalities no fault could be found therewith. Even otherwise the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has also expressed its displeasure vis. Re-employment of retired employees. Furthermore, the re-employment of retired employees on contract basis has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the judgments reported as Suo Motu case No,24 of 2010 and Human Rights Cases Nos.57701-P, 57719-G, 57754-P, 58152 P, 59036-S, 59060-P, 54187-P and 58118-K of 2010 reported as PLD 2011 Supreme Court 277, in which it has been held that, "5.I4--- ESTACODE, Vol. 1 (2007 Edn.) Instructions--Employment after retirement---Record in the present case, showed that prima facie, while re-employing the retired civil servants/persons in the police department the provisions of law i,e, S.14 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 as well as Instructions contained in ESTACODE, Vol. I, Edn. 2007 under the heading "Re- employment" and the judgments of the superior courts on the subject were not considered/adhered to---Effect---Held, for establishing rule of law and Constitutionalism, it was necessary that the relevant provisions should be followed strictly in letter and spirit otherwise it would not be possible to provide an effective machinery in law particularly in Police Department to ensure law and order so the peace in the country, at the same time to avoid violation of the relevant provisions of law which was tantamount to blocking the promotion of the Officers who had also served in the Forces and were waiting for their promotion but they were not getting chance because of the re employment/contract awarded to the retired Officers---Such was not only in the Police Department but for the purpose of achieving good governance; the same principle should be followed and strictly applied in other Departments as well---Supreme Court observed that Attorney General shall take up the matter with the Government/Competent Authority so that it may take necessary steps to rectify if any omission had been committed--- Attorney General shall convey present order to the Secretary, Establishment Division and the Chief Secretaries of the Provinces to ensure that if any civil servant or other person who had been re- employed, his case be also examined in terms of the provisions of law and both Federal and Provincial Governments should take necessary steps to ensure that re-employment or employment on contract basis were not made in violation of the relevant law."
' In 2011 SCMR 582, it has been held that, "S. 14--Employment after retirement--Appointment on contract basis are not allowed to be continued in terms of S.14 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the Policy, unless the conditions specified therein are satisfied."
9. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner having obtained premature retirement from Pakistan Navy was not governed by the Government of Punjab's letter dated 10-4-2008, is concerned, suffice is to say that the letter issued by the Government of Punjab is relatable to re-employment of retired officers/ officials and does not distinguish between any category of such retired persons. This ground, therefore, has also no merits.
10. The ground of violation of natural justice is also insignificant firstly because the petitioner was not being stigmatized in any manner and secondly because the right of hearing is always to be linked by the merits of the case and is, therefore, not a technical right. Admittedly, there is no merit in the petitioner's writ petition and therefore, safer reliance can be placed on the law laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in "Justice Khurshid Anwar Bhinder and others v. Federation of Pakistan and another (PLD 2010 SC 483) and "Abdul Qadir and others v. The settlement Commissioner and others (PLD 1991 SC 1029), wherein it has been held that the petitioner has no case even on this score.
11. With utmost respect to the case law referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same has no relevance to the facts and circumstances of the present case, rather same is distinguishable.
12. For what has been discussed above, we find that the petitioner cannot invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court as he is not governed by any statutory rules, rather his services are governed by principle of "Master and Servant". Therefore, relying on the judgments (Supra), the instant writ petition has no force, same is hereby dismissed.