MUHAMMAD IJAZ KHAN, J. Petitioner has filed the instant constitutional petition, under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, with the following prayer; "It is therefore most humbly prayed that on acceptance of this writ petition:
(a) To the regularize the service of the petitioner with effect from 24.04.2015 as he is performing duty on the same post for the last 07 years in BPS-19 on contract basis/ad-hoc.
(b) To promote the petitioner on permanent basis to Associate Professor BPS-20 against 02% quota as per Government Rules in the selection board meeting held on 28.09.2020 as the petitioner is deaf by ears and disabled person and count his previous service.
(c) To reimburse the salary to the petitioner withheld by the SBBU Authority during vacation by the University since 2015 till date."
2. Precisely the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a PH.D degree holder and as such he was selected as Assistant Professor under Interim Placement of Fresh P.Ds Program of the Higher Education Commission Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as "HEC") vide order dated 24.04.2014 and an agreement was also executed between the HEC, respondents University and the petitioner where condition No. 12 would be relevant for the present controversy is reproduced below:-
12. After joining of Assistant Professor, the University will be required to advertise the position of Assistant Professor within the contract period so that the petitioner have equal opportunity to compete with other candidates, if any, on vacation positions of Assistant Professor for regularization of his service through normal selection process.
It is further pleaded that vide office order dated 24.04.2014 the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor on ad-hoc basis and on fixed pay as per the University Rules, which contract was extended from time to time vide various office orders. It is further pleaded that when he was in the ad-hoc service of the respondents University, the respondents made an advertisement to fill up various posts of Associate Professor and Assistant Professor on regular basis and the petitioner considering himself eligible in terms of qualification and experience applied for the same in the discipline of Chemistry, however, he was not called for interview by the Selection Board in response to his application. It is further pleaded that the respondents University made another advertisement, to which too the petitioner applied but the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents University are violating condition No. 12 of his initial induction order by not regularizing his services, therefore, he filed writ petition No. 209-M of 2021 before this Court which was sent to the Syndicate of the respondents University for considering the grievances of the petitioner and accordingly the case of the petitioner was considered by the respondents University in its 31st meeting of the Syndicate held on 16.10.2021 under item No. 4 where the case of the petitioner was regretted on the ground that he has already been given opportunity for the position of Assistant Professor in the discipline of Chemistry for which he could not short listed as per Rules as he was interviewed for the position of Assistant Professor but he got failed in the interview, therefore, the petitioner has now again approached to this Court for the issuance of desired pray as reproduced hereinabove.
3. When this case was taken up for hearing on 20.04.2022 respondents were put to notice and they were directed to file their para-wise comments which they have accordingly submitted whereby they have denied the stance of the petitioner on various legal and factual grounds.
4. Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Astt: A.G for the official respondents were heard in considerable detail and the record perused with their able assistance.
5. The record would reveal that initially the petitioner was inducted and selected as Assistant Professor by the HEC under the Interim Placement of Fresh P.Ds Program of the Higher Education Commission Islamabad and in this regard an agreement was executed. The record further shows that thereafter the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis and on fixed pay basis as per the University Rules and as such his status is/was that of an ad-hoc employee and thus in the given facts and circumstances now the case of the petitioner qua his grievance in terms of violation of condition No. 12 of his initial induction order and the refusal of the respondents University to regularize his service as per his desired pray are taken for discussion as under: -
6. It is relevant to mention here that as per condition No. 12 it has never been promised either by the HEC or by the respondents University that his contract service is to be regularized. The plain reading of the condition No. 12 as reproduced above would show that it has never been promised /agreed/ consented by the respondents University that the services of the petitioner will be regularized, however, it has specifically been mentioned that he has to be provided an equal opportunity to compete with the other contenders, if any, which opportunity has duly been provided to him to compete with his rival contenders as stated by the respondents in their comments.
7. Even otherwise, the petitioner through the instant writ petition is seeking regularization of his service from 24.04.2014 which is the date of his ad-hoc appointment, whereas in pray "b" he is seeking the promotion on permanent basis as Associate Professor against 02% quota reserved for the disable persons, however, both the aforesaid prayers of the petitioner are not backed by any law rules or regulations of the respondents University. It may be noted that though the petitioner is seeking retrospective regularization from the date of his ad-hoc appointment and promotion on permanent basis as against the post of Associate Professor on the basis of 02% quota reserved for the disable persons, however, petitioner was unable to make reference to any of the law backing his aforesaid pray, therefore, the pray made by the petitioner is prima facie misconceived and is not supported by any law. It is also relevant to mention here that the last induction of the petitioner in the service of respondents University as was an ad-hoc employee vide order dated 24.04.2014 which was extended from time to time, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard too could not make any reference to any rules or regulations which provides for the regularization of ad-hoc employees of the respondents University, therefore, on this score too, the pray of the petitioner for regularization of his service and that too from retrospective date and as against the post of Associate Professor are something which are totally alien to the Rules and regulations of the respondents University, therefore, both prays of the petitioner are squarely misconceived. In the case of "Khushal Khan Khattak University through Vice-Chancellor & others v/s Jabran Ali Khan & others" reported 2021 SCMR 977 the Hon'ble Apex Court has declared that there is no vested right to seek regularization for employees hired on contractual basis unless there was legal and statutory basis for the same. Similarly, in the case of "Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Workers Welfare Board v/s Raheel Ali Gohar" reported as 2020 SCMR 2068 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in any case, this Court in recent judgments has unequivocally held that contractual employees have no automatic right to be regularized unless the same has specifically been provided for in a law. Most recently, in a judgment in Civil Petitions Nos. 4504 to 4576, 4588 and 4589 of 2017 dated 08.01.2019 this court has held that having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that contractual employees have no right to be regularized until there is a law provided to that effect. They are the contractual employees and they have to serve till the pleasure of their master and in case of any wrongful termination, which according to them has taken place, they cannot seek the reinstatement, at the best, they can only have the compensation for the wrongful termination by applying to the competent court of law. Similar observations were also recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. v/s Muhammad Sami Ullah" reported as 2021 SCMR 998 that an adhoc, temporary or contractual appointment does not create any vested right of regularization in favour of the appointee. In the case of "Vice Chancellor Bacha Khan University Charsada, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & others v/s Tanveer Ahmad & others" reported as 2021 SCMR 1995, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the learned High Court in the impugned judgment has held that the Respondents were appointed through the prescribed manner, albeit, on contract under the KP University Act, 2016. It is settled law that a person employed on contract basis has no vested right to regularization. By mere efflux of time, an employee cannot claim regularization and knock on the door of the High Court for the same. Likewise, in the case of "Govt: of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Agriculture, Livestock & others v/s Saeed-ul-Hassan & others" reported as 2021 SCMR 1376, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the learned High Court in the impugned judgments has held that the Respondents had a vested right to be regularized, on the basis of satisfactory service, because of the conversion of different projects to the regular side.
We are unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court for the reason that it is by now a settled principle of law that, long or satisfactory contractual service does not confer a vested right for regularization as conversion from contractual to regular appointment requires statutory support.
8. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner was also specifically confronted that what of his right has been violated for the enforcement of which he has filed the instant constitutional petition as there is no dispute with this factual aspect of the case that the petitioner was a contract/ad-hoc employee and his services were to be governed by the terms and conditions as find mentioned in his initial induction order which his appointment was on ad- hoc basis and as against a fix pay, however, he was unable to answer with satisfactory reasons and thus was unable to wriggle out of this legal impediment. In a writ jurisdiction what the writ petitioner is required to first establish that he has suffered a "legal grievance" or he has wrongly been deprived or he has wrongly been refused something for which he was otherwise legally entitled to, and it is only after the establishment of such a right, followed by its violation or refusal by a public functionaries, and as such it would be thereafter that he may be held as entitled for the desired writ. In the case of Fazl-e-Haq, Accountant-General, West Pakistan vs. The State reported as PLD 1960 Supreme Court (Pak.) 295, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court could only be invoked by a person whose legal right has been denied.
This view was also followed in the case of Mian Fazal Din vs. Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore and another reported as PLD 1969 Supreme Court 223, in which it was held that petitioner has to show that he had a personal interest in performance of the legal duty which if not performed or performed in a manner not permitted by law would result in the loss of some personal benefit or advantage. In the case of "Hafiz Hamdullah v/s Saifullah Khan & others" reported as PLD 2007 Supreme Court 52 has held that with regard to the first objection it may be noted that under Article 199(1)(a) of the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked by an aggrieved person which denotes a person who has suffered a legal grievance, against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him or wrongfully refused him something which he was legally entitled to. It is also the requirement that the person invoking the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution has to establish that any of his legal or fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution has been violated resulting in legal loss.
9. In view of the above discussion and exposition of law, the petitioner has not been able to make out any case for issuance of the desired writ, therefore, the instant petition being bereft of any merits is hereby dismissed, in limine.