Through this common judgment, I intend to decide upon the common issues arising in the following Writ Petitions:-- W.P. Nos. Title 8640/2010Rabab Zahira vs. University of Agriculture etc. 10882/2010Dr. Abdul Ghaffar vs. University of Agriculture etc. 15312/2010Dr. Asif Javaid vs. University of Agriculture etc. 19178/2010Mohsin Saleem etc. vs. University of Agriculture etc.
2. A description of the petitions is as follows:--
(i) WP No. 8640/2010. The Petitioner in WP No. 8640/2010 was appointed ad-hoc on contract basis for a period of six months by the Respondents vide notification dated 4.4.2007 with effect from 29.3.2007 which stipulates the terms and conditions of the contract of the Petitioner. The name of the Petitioner is at Sr.No.
51. The contract was extended vide notification dated 31.5.2008 for another six months with effect from 26.5.2008. The Petitioner's name is at Sr.No.
21. Again vide notification dated 30.6.2009 the contract was extended for another six months with effect from 27.5.2009, expiring on 27.11.2009. The Petitioner requested for extension in her ad-hoc appointment for another six months, however, the Respondents did not respond to the repeated reminders and requests of the Petitioner. Throughout this time the Petitioner kept performing her duties, however, she was, not paid any salaries. The Petitioner was also recommended by the Respondent No. 1 for extension in her ad-hoc appointment, however, no heed was paid to this recommendation. The Petitioner filed appeal before the Chancellor which is still pending. Ultimately based on a verbal order dated 15.4.2010 the services of the Petitioner were terminated. The Petitioner has also impugned the act of the Respondents of rejecting the Petitioner and appointing the Respondents No. 4 and 5 as lecturers on regular basis for being in violation of the merit. Hence this petition.
(ii) WP Nos.10882, 15312 and 19178 of 2010. The Petitioner in WP Nos.10882 along with Petitioners in WP Nos.15312 and 19178 of 2010 have all impugned the verbal order of Respondent No. 4 dated 15.4.2010 by virtue of which they were not allowed to take their classes on the grounds that the verbal order is unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice.
Therefore the common challenge is with respect to a verbal order on the basis of which the Petitioners were not allowed to carry on lecturers at the Respondent ,University and in WP No. 8640/2010 the Petitioner has also challenged the' appointment of the Respondents No. 4 and 5 for being without merit.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners argued that the Petitioners have served in the Respondent University for a long time as Lecturers, being paid initially on lecture basis and ultimately being given ad-hoc appointments through different notifications. The Petitioners ad-hoc appointments were extended from time to time and after the expiry of the ad-hoc appointments, the Respondents did not extend the ad-hoc period despite the recommendations made in their favour and despite the long standing service of the Petitioners. The Petitioners have challenged the verbal orders of the Respondent No. 4 on the grounds that there is no sanctity in the verbal orders and that they have no knowledge as to the reasons or the grounds on which they have been denied the right to deliver their lectures at the Respondent University.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in WP No. 8640/2010 argued that the Respondents advertised for three posts of lecturers in BS-18 on regular basis for which the Petitioner applied. She was called for interview, however, she was not selected. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Respondents No. 4 and 5 were selected as lecturers on regular basis, however, they did not have the requisite merit and that the Petitioner has a far better merit and is a more deserving candidate and it is on account of the malafide acts of the Respondent University that the Petitioner was denied regular appointment. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied upon the marks given by the Selection Board to the different candidates to show that the Petitioner was not given the appropriate or deserving marks, given that she satisfied the eligibility criteria set out by the Respondent University in the advertisement dated 12.10.2009. Learned counsel argued that the Respondents No. 4 and 5 were appointed on favouritism. They did not have the requisite experience, qualification and even necessary publication. He argued that this appointment is based on the malafides of the Respondents.
5. The Respondents have filed their report and parawise comments. Learned counsel for the Respondent University argued that so far as the ad-hoc appointment of the Petitioner is concerned and their extensions from time to time, the same is not denied. However, he argued that the extensions granted to the Petitioners in WP No. 8640/2010 expired in November 2009. The extensions granted to the Petitioner in WP No. 10882/2010 expired on 23.3.2010, the extension granted to the Petitioners in WP No. 19178/2010 expired in the year 2009. The Petitioners in WP No. 19178/2010 applied for regular position as lecturer. They were duly considered and interviewed by the Selection Board, however, they Were not recommended for regular appointments: He argued that, similarly the Petitioner in WP No 8640/2010 applied for regular position and she was duly considered and interviewed by the Selection Board, however, she was also not recommended by the Selection Board. The Petitioner in WP No. 15312/2010 extension expired in June 2010 after which no further extension was granted. Learned counsel argued that the Petitioners were all appointed as ad-hoc lecturers on contract which were duly extended from time to time and after their contract expired the Petitioners ceased to be employees of the Respondent University. Learned counsel stated that the Petitioners have no vested right on the basis of which they can claim extension in their ad-hoc appointments. He further argued that the Petitioners were aware of the fact that they were granted one last extension and that their contracts had expired. Thereafter the Respondents were not required to issue any notice or give the Petitioners any hearing on this issue.
He further stated that the Petitioners have impugned a verbal order stating they are no longer required to deliver lecture with the University, however, he states that after the expiry of the contract period, since the Petitioners ceased to be the contract employees of the University, they were no longer allowed to deliver lectures at the University. Therefore, the question of any verbal order restraining them from delivering lecturers is misconceived and contrary to the record. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon the case titled 'Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs vs. Muhammad Azam Chattha' (2013 SCM R 120) that The contract employees are governed by the doctrine of master and servant and in the event of arbitrary dismissal or unwarranted termination of employment, the employee can sue for damages equal to wages, allowances and other benefits which would have been otherwise been payable under the contract of employment, in which case the writ petition is not maintainable. He has also relied upon 2013 SCM R 304 in S.M.C. No. 15 of 2010 and C.M.As Nos.2689, 3244 of 2010 and CMAs Nos.5383, 3068 of 2011 that a contract employee does not have a vested right for regular employment.. Learned counsel argued with respect to the grievance of the Petitioner in WP No. 8640/2010 that the appointment of the Respondents No. 4 and 5 are contrary to the merit, that the Petitioner had also filed an application before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in which a direction was given to the Respondent No. 1 to decide her application. He argued that the grievance of the Petitioner was duly heard and a comprehensive order was passed by the Vice Chancellor through its order dated 11.5.2010. He argued that all the allegations raised by the Petitioner of favouritism and nepotism were duly considered at this hearing and thereafter the Vice Chancellor passed an order. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot re-agitate the matter again before this Court. He argued that the Petitioner has not raised any ground or challenged this matter specifically in the instant writ petition. He further argued that the Petitioner's case was duly considered by the Selection Board who unanimously approved the selected candidates and as such there is no justification in questioning the decision of the Selection Board. He further argued that due process was followed, the Petitioner was considered and the Selection Board did not recommend her for a regular appointment.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the *parties and reviewed the record available on the file.
7. The first issue before this Court is with respect to the common prayer of the Petitioners that they were restrained from delivering lecturers at the Respondent University through verbal orders. In terms of the record and as per the arguments made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, it is an admitted position that the Petitioners were all appointed on ad-hoc basis through different notifications whereby their period of ad-hoc appointment was extended from time to time. The expiry of the ad-hoe period is also an admitted position. The grievance of the Petitioners is that after the expiry of the contract period, the Petitioners requested for further extensions, they were denied the same even though they were recommended by their departments for extensions in the adhoc appointments. The Petitioners are also aggrieved by the fact that one fine day through a verbal order they were denied the right to deliver their lectures at the Respondent University. The record produced before this Court is not disputed and from this record it is clear that the Petitioners were all appointed on contract for adhoc lecturing, which contracts were extended from time to time. The Petitioners were all aware of the expiry of their extension period. After the expiry of the extension period, admittedly no further extension was granted to the Petitioners. There is nothing on the record to show on what basis the Petitioners did deliver, the lectures, if at all, at the Respondent University. The Respondent University has categorically denied that the Petitioners were allowed to continue giving lectures at the Respondent University. I am of the opinion that the Petitioners have no right to continue lecturing after the expiry date of their contract period. There is also no vested right of the Petitioners for seeking extension or regular appointment. Finally there was no reason for the Respondent University to issue any notice or inform them that they are no longer required to continue delivering lectures, as the Petitioners knew that they were appointed as adhoc lecturer and that such contract was for a limited period of time. After its expiry, there was no reason for the Respondent University to issue any notice or inform the Petitioners that their contract period had expired. Therefore the very basis upon which these writ petitions have been filed wherein a verbal order has been impugned is totally misconceived and contrary to the record.
8. So far as the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner in WP No. 8640/2010 challenging the appointment of the Respondents No. 4 and 5 for being devoid of merit, I am of the opinion that due process was, followed. The Petitioner applied for regular appointment. She was duly considered by the Selection Board and ultimately after considering all the candidates the Selection Board unanimously appointed the Respondents No. 4 and 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners relied upon the case titled 'Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority and others vs. Lt. Cola Syed Jawaid Ahmad' (2013 SCM R 1707) that the failure to appoint the Petitioner is in fact a procedural violation and infringement of the Petitioner's rights to natural justice. In the case of this Petitioner there has been no procedural violation and no right of natural justice has been violated as she has been duly heard, interviewed and more importantly pursuant to her own application before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, her matter was heard by the Vice Chancellor who passed a detailed order with respect to her allegations of the appointments being based on favouritism and nepotism. Now she cannot re-agitate the same issue through her writ petition.
9. In view of the aforesaid these petitions are dismissed.