' MRS. ASHRAF JAHAN, J.--- The Petitioner Saeed Ahmed Sethar has filed this petition with the following prayers: "A. Declare the Summary dated 05.11.2013 and any notification in consequent thereof is illegal, ultra- vires, null, void and not binding as per law. B. Declare the selection of the Respondent No.3 as Consultant is against the Terms of References (TOR) as such not good in the eyes of law deserved to be set aside. C. Direct the official respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner as per Terms of References (TOR) for the post of Consultant.
D. Grant any other relief deems fit and proper under the circumstances. E. Award the cost of the petition."
2. The facts forming background of this petition as per narration by the petitioner are that he was working as Additional Secretary (Power) Electric Power Department, Government of Sindh, during his job tenure in addition to his own duties he was also entrusted with the charge of the post of Consultant, Electricity Monitoring and Reconciliation Cell (EM&RC), Finance Department, Government of Sindh. It is the case of the petitioner that he is highly educated person, having a Bachelor's degree in Engineering (Electronics), Post Graduate Diploma in Electrical Power Engineering along with a LL.M degree at his credit, having vast experience of monitoring and billing of electricity distribution system of WAPDA, and having served as S.D.O/XEN in WAPDA from October, 1975 to November, 1984. As the petitioner had vast experience of 36 years and was already performing the functions of Consultant, he was appointed as Senior Consultant on affairs relating to WAPDA/KESC w.e.f.
06.07.2011 on contract basis for a period of two years, during which due to his performance billions of rupees of national exchequer were saved. Seeing his efficiency the respondent No.2 sent a summary to the Chief Secretary for extension of contract for two years period in favour of the petitioner in the month of March, 2013. Subsequently, vide letter dated 02.05.2013 the Advisory to the Chief Minister for Energy and Technology department also strongly recommended the case of the petitioner highlighting his previous performance, but the summary floated by the department was never sent to the competent authority i.e. Chief Minister of Sindh for considering his case as the respondent No.1 returned the summary to the department with the directions to make the selection through advertisement in newspapers. In pursuance of such advertisement, the petitioner also applied for the post of Consultant and appeared in the interview, but the petitioner was shocked to see the working paper issued by respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner was shown at serial No.4 in the merit list. The respondent No.2 through summary to Chief Minister of Sindh recommended the namis own duties, vide notification dated 27.01.2011. The petitioner retired on 05.07.2011 and after his retirement. He was appointed as Senior Consultant on affairs relating to WAPDA/KESC on contract basis w.e.f.
06.07.2011 through notification dated 10.12.2011 isse of respondent No.3 for the selection of Consultant against the norms of justice as he did not meet with the TOR, advertised for this post.
The selection of respondent No.3 being result of under hand dealing, therefore, the present petitioner, was left with no option but to knock the door of the Court.
3. In reply, the respondent No.2 has filed his comments, wherein he has disclosed that the petitioner joined Govt. Of Sindh in 1986 on deputation and was posted as Electrical Inspector (BPS-18) in Irrigation Land Power department. Subsequently he was absorbed in Govt. Of Sindh in the year 1989. In the year 2010 he was posted as Additional Secretary (Power) and was allowed to hold the charge of post of Consultant in addition to hued by the Energy Department, but subsequently his services were terminated in compliance of the order of the Honourable Supreme Court vide judgment dated 22.03.2013. It was further clarified that the EM&R Cell is under the administrative control of Energy Department and each and every officer/ official of the department contributed his due share in the performance of the Cell, therefore, the credit of any achievement cannot be given to an individual. It was admitted by respondent No.2 that the department moved a summary to the Chief Minister for extension of contract of petitioner for two years, but its fate remained undecided as his services were terminated in pursuance of orders of the Honourable Supreme Court vide Services, General Administration and Coordination Department notification dated 29.03.2013. Similarly, the fate of summary initiated on 08.04.2013 after termination of contract of the petitioner in the light of orders of the Honourable'Supreme Court remained undecided. It is further the case of respondent No.2 that upon the directions of Chief. Minister, advertisement for appointment of Consultant was published through Selection Committee headed by the Chief Secretary. The petitioner along with ten other candidates applied for the post, short listed candidates were called for the interview including the petitioner. The evaluation sheet/score card of short listed candidates was prepared keeping in view the qualification, experience, additional skills and age limit of the participants. The petitioner was placed at serial No.4 and the Departmental Selection Committee, consisting of senior officers headed by the Chief Secretary on the basis of overall merit, recommended the name of Engineer Hassan Raza Abbasi, who was at serial No.3 for appointment as Consultant on contract for a period of two years in Electricity Monitoring and Reconciliation Cell, Energy Department. After approval of the competent authority Services, General Administraiion and Coordination Department issued notification dated 26.12.2013 regarding appointment of Engineer Hassan Raza Abbasi as Consultant. As the respondent No.3 fulfilled the criteria mentioned in the advertisement, therefore, the present petition merits no consideration and may be dismissed accordingly.
4. The Respondent No.1 vide statement dated 13.2.2014 adopted the paradise comments filed by the Respondent No.2.
5. The contesting respondent No.3 filed his written . Statement, wherein he stated that by profession he is an Electrical Engineer with Masters Degree of Engineering Studies from University of Wollongong, Australia (1997 to 1999). Besides, a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from University of Engineering and Technology from Peshawar and registered with Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC) duly recognized and attested by Higher Education Commission. He further 'stated that the respondent No.3 joined the Karachi Electric Supply Company (KESC) on December 12, 1989 initially as Assistant Executive Engineer, and then resigned from senior post as General Manager at VIBC Malir Region-III on 3rd October, 2012. Having a vast experience of 23 years in the relevant field, he applied for the post of Consultant and appeared in interview on August 8, 2013 headed by Chief Secretary, Sindh. As he was found much qualified, eligible, experienced and fit by the Departmental Selection Committee among all the short listed candidates, therefore, his name was sent for appointment for the post of Consultant and after approval from the Chief Minister, notification was issued. According to respondent No,3 the petitioner himself has disclosed in para 4 of his petition that he had an experience of nine years and one month, whereas job criteria (1) advertised in the newspaper specifies the minimum ten years' experience in the field of Electricity Distribution/Utility Company. He further disclosed that petitioner had tried to misguide the Court by stating that he met the criteria mentioned in the TOR, whereas the education and experience are required in criteria (1) of the advertisement and not in the TOR which in fact is job description only.
As the selection of respondent No,3 is purely on merit basis, therefore, the instant petition merits no consideration and is liable to be dismissed with costs.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that before retirement the petitioner was working as Additional Secretary (Power), Electric Power Department, Government of Sindh and was also entrusted with the additional charge of Consultant, Electricity, Monitoring and Reconciliation Cell (EM&RC). After retirement he was appointed on contract as Senior Consultant for a period of two years w.e.f, 06.7.2011. Looking to his extraordinary performance the department floated a summary through proper channel to the Chief Minister, whereby further two years' extension in his contract was sought. The post of 'Senior Consultant', being a contract post, therefore, not in any manner was jeopardizing the rights of regular employees. As per contention of learned counsel the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 08.3.2013 passed in case No,16/2011 is not applicable to the case of petitioner. Therefore the termination order of his contract, being unlawful and unjust is liable to be cancelled. It is further added by the learned counsel that after advertisement of post in newspaper he appeared before the committee and looking to his qualification, experience and performance was quite confident that he will be selected for the post as other candidates did not fulfill the requirements transpiring in TOR. But to his utter surprise he was kept at serial No,4 in the merit list and the respondent No,3 was appointed as Senior Consultant, hence this petition. In support of his case he relied upon the following case law.
1. Mukhtar Ahmed and 37 others v. Government of West Pakistan through the Secretary Food and Agriculture and another PLD 1971 SC 846.
2.Arshad Jamal v. N.W.F.P. Forest Development Corporation and others 2004 SCM R 468.
3.Human Rights Cases Nos .57701-P, 57719-G, 57754-P, 58152-P, 59036-S, 59060-P, 54187-P, and 58118-K of 2010 and SMC No,24 of 2010 PLD 2011 SC 205.
7.Conversely, it is argued by the learned AAG that the contract employee has no vested right in his favour. The notification dated 29.3.2013 issued by SGA&CD was in the light of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan's judgment therefore the present petition is not maintainable. He has further contended that the respondent No,3 has been selected for the post after due process of law on merit basis, therefore the present petition merits no consideration and is liable to be dismissed.
8.Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No,3 adopted the arguments advanced by learned AAG, however, added that as the appointment of respondent No,3 is purely on merit basis in accordance with law therefore the petition may be dismissed with compensatory costs.
9.In the rebuttal it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his contract was still incomplete, therefore, it could not have been terminated in the manner as it has been done by the respondents.
10 We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and have perused the case record.
11.It is an admitted position that the petitioner retired from Government service on 05.7.2014. After his retirement he was appointed as Senior Consultant on affairs relating to WAPDA/KESC on contract basis w.e.f, 06.7.2011 vide notification dated 10.12.2011. Subsequently his services were terminated vide notification dated 29.3.2013 in pursuance of orders dated 08.3.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in respect of CMA No, 1145/2013 in Suo Motu case No,16/2011, with the approval of competent authority i.e,. Chief Minister Sindh. By way of above notification the contract appointments of 86 officers/ officials re-employed on contract basis in the Govt. of Sindh were terminated and all of them stood relieved with immediate effect.
12.By way of present petition the petitioner has prayed for multiple reliefs. At one hand he has prayed that summary dated 5.11.2013 and any notification in consequent thereof may be declared as illegal, ultra virus, null and void, not binding as per law. Simultaneously he has challenged the selection of respondent No,3 as consultant and prayed that the respondents be directed to reconsider the case of petitioner as per terms of References (TOR) for the post of consultant.
13.When the case of the petitioner is examined with this back ground, first of all it is to be seen as to whether a contract employee has any vested right in his favour. By this time it is a well established legal position that a contract employee has no vested rights created in his favour.
Moreover, it is not the case where the petitioner was appointed as a regular employee to give him a valid cause of action to agitate his case. Reference in this regard may be made to the case of Trustees of the Port of Karachi v. Saqib Samadani (2012 SCM R 64), the case of Government of Balochistan, Department of Health through Secretary Civil Secretariat, Quetta v. Dr. Zahida Kakar and 43 others (2005 SCM R 642) and the order in SMC No,15/2010 (2013 SCM R 304).
14.It is asserted by the petitioner and admitted by the department that summary dated 8.4.2013 was moved in favour of the petitioner but it remained undecided. In our opinion mere floating of summary does not confer any vested right; therefore this assertion of petitioner is bereft of any legal merit.
15.At this juncture it is to be noted that the administrative department has moved note for Chief Secretary dated 25.6.2013, wherein it had been proposed that the department may be allowed to advertise the post of Senior Consultant in WAPDA and KESC affairs to make selection on merit through departmental selection committee under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary, which was approved. Thereafter the post was advertised in leading newspapers and after completion of due process, in which the present petitioner also participated, respondent No,3 was selected. This selection was made by the Selection Committee on merit and there is nothing on record about any lack of disqualification of respondent No,3 or about the allegations of under hand dealings in his appointment as alleged by the petitioner. Therefore, on merits too the petitioner has no locus- standi to challenge the appointment of respondent No,3. Thus in our view no fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is also distinguishable and not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In view of foregoing discussion this petition being devoid of merit is dismissed in limine.