Ishtiaq Ibrahim., J.--Abdullah Khan and six others, petitioners crave the indulgence of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, praying that: "On acceptance of the instant writ petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare the impugned orders of termination of petitioners null and void, in effective illegal, unlawful, void ab initio. Ultra wires being passed without lawful authority and writ be issued that the respondent shall not treat the petitioners contrary to the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 and their retirement be made after the completion of 60 years of ages."
2. The grievance of petitioners is that they were recruited as teachers at various posts in the Sayurj Public School and college Chitral and served in the school for the last 21, 17, 15, 23, 18 and 23 years respectively with full devotion, dedication and zeal, providing best quality of education to the children of Chitral. Due to the hectic efforts of the then Principal Major (Retd) G.D Langlands and.
Staff members, the institution became the best school and college of District Chitral for high quality of education. The name of school was also changed at the name of Principal, i,e, The Langlands School and College Chitral. Major (Retd) G.D Langlands served the institution as Principal since the years 1989 to 2013 and thereafter Miss Carey 'Schofield took over the charge as Principal of Langlands School and College. She without any cogent and plausible grounds, without any show- cause notice forcibly retired the petitioners vide impugned orders dated 18.12.2014, 02.03.2015, 05.03.2015 and 16.03.2015: The petitioners moved mercy petitions to the Respondents No, 1, 14 and Board of Trustees of the Langlands School and College through its Chairman for redressal of their grievances and restoration of their services, but with no result. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Comments were called from the respondents, which they accordingly furnished, wherein they have contradicted the petitioners' allegations with vehemence. They also questioned the maintainability of this petition.
4. Arguments heard and available record perused.
5. At the very outset of arguments learned counsel for respondents raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this writ petition, therefore, it would be appropriate to resolve the question of maintainability at the very inception. The relief sought by the petitioners under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, for appreciation of legal import is reproduced as follows.
"199. Jurisdiction of High Court--(1) Subject to the Constitution, a High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law,--
(a) on the application of any aggrieved party, make an order--
(i) xxxxxxxx
(ii) declaring that any act done or proceeding taken within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court by a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority has been done or taken without lawful authority and is of no legal effect; or
(b) on the application of any person, make an order--
(i) XXXXXXXXX
(ii) requiring a person within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court holding or purporting to hold a public office to show under what authority of law he claims to hold that office; or"
6. The petitioners seek declaration of impugned orders of their termination as illegal, unlawful, without lawful authority, hence, it Would fall within the first part of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which ordains' a declaration of an act done, proceedings taken by a person, performing function in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The phrase "person" is of paramount significance, which has been defined in sub- clause (5) of the same Article, which includes:
(5) In this Article, unless the context otherwise requires,-- "person" includes any body politic or corporate, any authority of or under the control of the Federal Government or of a Provincial Government, and any Court or tribunal, other than the Supreme Court, a High Court or a Court or tribunal established under a law relating to the Armed Forces of Pakistan; and "prescribed law officer" means-
(a) in relation to an application affecting the Federal Government or an authority of or under the control of the Federal Government, the Attorney-General, and
(b) in any other case, the Advocate-General for the Province in which the application is made.
7. Same issue came under consideration before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled "Salahuddin and 2 others vs. Frontier Sugar Mills & Distillery Ltd. Takht Bhai and 2 others" (PLD 1975 Supreme Court 244), wherein their lordship observed that at times government creates statutory corporation in different spheres to have profitable outcome and retain the effective control over its function by appointing their heads and senior officers to regulate their composition and procedure by appropriate statues and also by providing funds for their financial matters. By virtue of their this status, they are regarded as "person" performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or Province, while private organizations or persons, quite distinguished from the government or semi government agencies, cannot be regarded as person performing functions in connection with the affairs of Federation or a Province, merely because their activities happened to be regulated by the law made by the State.
8. The case of petitioners when examined at the touchstone of the interpretation in Salahuddin's case, one comes to an irresistible conclusion that the Langlands School & College, Chitral, does not fall within the ambit of "persons", therefore, the aggrieved persons could not approach the High Court by invoking its constitutional jurisdiction.
9. The petitioners were employees of the Langlands School & college, Chitral, registered under registration No, 1165/05/7485 dated 04.09.2012 with the Registrar Joint Stock companies & Societies Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Peshawar, under the Societies' Registration Act, XXI of 1860. It functions under the Board of Trustees, who has constituted Board of Governors to manage and control the business of School. It is completely autonomous body having no statutory rules. The drafted bylaws provided by the petitioners were never implemented or adopted by the Government, thus does not possess the status of statutory rules. Under Section 2(41) General Clauses Act a notification shall mean a notification published under proper authority in the official Gazette. Before publication in the official gazette a drafted notification is of no significance and legal importance and legally it cannot be termed as "notification". Reliance is placed on case titled "Government of Sindh through Secretary Agriculture and livestock department and others vs. Messrs Khan Ginners (Private) Limited and 57 others" (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 347).
"The case of Muhammad Suleman and others v. Abdul Ghani PLD 1978 SC 190 throws sufficient light on the legal position that issuance of a Notification is not of any significance or legal importance till it is published in an official Gazette. According to Section 2(41) of the General Clauses Act, 1956 a "Notification" means a Notification published under proper authority in an official Gazette."
10. If no statutory rules have been violated, no writ can be issued under constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. In this respect reference may be made to case titled, "Pakistan International Airline Corporation and others vs. Tanveer ur Rehman and others" (PLD 2010 SC 676), wherein it is held that: "If any adverse action has been taken by the employer in violation of the statutory rules, only then such action should be amenable to the writ jurisdiction. However, if such action has no backing of the statutory rules, then the principle of Master and Servant would be applicable and such employees have to seek remedy permissible before the Court of competent jurisdiction."
Similar view has also been adopted in the recent judgment of the apex Court, cited in case titled, "Muhammad Zaman and others vs. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, (Regulation wing) Islamabad and others" (2017 SCM R 571)
11. In view of the dictum laid down by the' Hon'ble Apex Court in the above mentioned judgment, the jurisdiction of this Court is barred to entertain the instant petition. Accordingly, this petition being not maintainable stands dismissed, however, the petitioners are at liberty to approach proper competent forum, if so advised.