SHAKEEL AHMAD, J. Through this single judgment, we intend to decide the instant petition (W.P.
No.1307-B/2019) as well as connected petitions bearing W.P. No.1976-P/2016, W.P. No.4747-P/2017, C.O.C. No.689-P/2019 in C.O.C. No.107-P/2019 in W.P. No.2276-P/2017, W.P. No.1304-D/2019, W.P.
No.2055-P/2019, W.P. No.3445-P/2019, W.P. No.5605-P/2019, W.P. No.7095- P/2019, W.P. No.1668- P/2020, W.P. No.1798-P/2020, W.P. No.3574-P/2020, W.P. No.4210-P/2020, W.P. No.464- P/2021, W.P.
No.4589-P/2021, W.P. No.241-P/2022, W.P. No.1103-P/2022, W.P. No.1174-P/2022, W.P. No.3016- P/2022, C.O.C. No.38-B/2019 in W.P. No.307-B/2018, C.O.C. No.6-B/2020 in W.P. No.781-B/2016, C.O.C. No.20- P/2020 in W.P. No.1072-A/2016, C.O.0 No.84-P/2020 in W.P. No.819-B/2016, C.O.0 No.102-P/2020 in W.P.
No.250- B/2017, C.O.C. No.126-P/2020 in W.P No.507-B/2016, C.O.C No.168-P/2020 in W.P. No.498- D/2016, C.O.C. No.169-P/2020 in W.P. No.507-B/2016, C.O.C. No.170-P/2020 in W.P. No.781-B/2016, C.O.C. No.176-P/2022 in W.P. No.1022- P/2017, C.O.C. No.37-P/2019 in W.P. No.249-B/2017, C.O.C. No. 175-P/2022 in W.P. No. 818-P/2016, C O.C . No. 181-P/2020 in W.P. No.635-P/2015, C.O.C. No.283-P/2020 in W.P. No.6547-P/2018, C.O.C. No.328-P/2020 in W.P. No.3659-P/2016, C.O.C. No.591- P/2020 in W.P.
No.781-P/2016, C.O.C. No.92-P/2021 in W.P. No.24- B/2016, C.O.C. No.201-P/2022 in W.P. No.5023- P/2013, C.O.C. No.279-P/2022 in W.P. No.915-P/2021 and C.O.C. No.293-P/2022 in W.P. No.571-A/2019, as in all these petitions identical question of facts and law are involved.
2. The petitioners in all these petitions were the employees of the Workers Welfare Board. Short facts of each petition, are as under: W.P. No.1307-P/2019.
Concise facts of this petition are that initially, the petitioners were appointed as Elementary Teacher (BPS-14) on contract basis for a period of three years, and on 08.02.2011, their services were regularized vide reference No. WWB/DE/9- 2/1006, however, as per contents of this petition, their promotion to the post of SST in BPS-16 was due as per rules of Workers Welfare Fund (Employees Service) Rules, 1997, but, they were deprived of promotion by the respondents.
W.P. No.1976-P/2016.
Main grievance of the petitioners, as per contents of the petition is that they are working against different posts i.e. SS, SST, Librarian, Senior Clerks, Mali, Superintendent, NQ, LA, in WFGHSS in different districts of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, on regular basis. The respondents have appointed teaching and non-teaching staff on contract basis, due to which, the salaries of regular staff have been disturbed and their salaries are now being paid to the contractual employees and owing to that, the salaries of regular staff are delayed for 3/4 months.
W.P. No.4747-P/2017 The petitioner in the instant case was appointed as Principal on work charge basis/fixed pay for a period of two years and posted at Working Folks Grammer Higher Secondary School, Ghazni Khel, Bannu on 19.11.2013. On 14.02.2014, all the appointments of the employees who were working on fixed pay were cancelled, however, the service of the petitioner was retained by the respondents, and when, the services of certain employees who were working against different cadres, were converted from fixed pay to contract basis, the petitioner also requested the respondents/department for same treatment but no heed was paid to his request.
C.O.C. No.689-P/2019 in C.O.C. No.107-P/2019 in W.P. No.2276-P/2017.
Through this C.O.C., the petitioner, who is working as Account Assistant in BPS-14 in. Working Welfare Board, Shami Road, Peshawar, seeks compliance of order of this Court dated 11.09.2018. passed in W.P. No.2276-P/2017. This Court while disposing of the above writ petition directed that working papers of the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Superintendent shall be placed before the Selection Committee at the occasion, whenever, post of Superintendent falls vacant and, in the meanwhile,, his pay scale shall be considered for selection grade. However, after passing of sometime, the petitioner filed a C.O.C. No.107-P/2019, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 08.05.2019 in the following manner: "When the petition was taken up for hearing, the latter by referring to notification dated 5.4.2019, appended with their comments, stated at the bar that the petitioner has been upgraded from BPS-14 to 16, while for his promotion, working papers have been prepared and his case will be considered in the light of judgment of this court in the upcoming Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting. They assured the court that promotion case of the petitioner will be finalized within two months. When confronted with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner was satisfied over that. When so, this CDC seems to have served out its purpose and is no more required to be kept pending, it is, thus, disposed of with the direction to the respondents to complete the process within two months".
Now the petitioner has filed this COC.
W.P. No.1304-D/2019.
Short history of this petition is that on 16.02.2012, the petitioner was appointed as Elementary Teacher in BPS-14 at WFGHSS (Female), D.1. Khan and vide order dated 13.09.2019, his service was terminated on the ground that he is over-age.
W.P. No.2055-P/2019.
Main grievance of the petitioner is that initially, he was appointed as Care Taker on contract basis for a period of three years, and after expiry of his contract period, he was again appointed as Junior Clerk on his best performance. His service was terminated on the ground that he is over- age, however, on his request/application for age relaxation, he was reinstated in service but on fixed pay instead of contract. Hence, this petition.
W.P. No.3445-P/2019.
In essence, on 22.05.2004, initially, the petitioner was appointed as Teacher and posted at Working Folks Grammer Secondary School (Female), Amangarh, Nowshera for a period of three years, and thereafter, she was promoted to the post of Principal (BPS-18) and served the department for about 13 years. Vide order dated 20.10.2016, she was appointed as Headmistress (BPS-17); on the recommendation of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission and accordingly, she was relieved vide notification dated 21.10.2016, issued by the Chairman, KP Workers Welfare Board.
Through this petition, the petitioner seeks gratuity for the duties performed by her in her previous department i.e. Working Welfare Board.
W.P. No.5605-P/2019.
On 23.06.2011, the petitioner in the instant petition was appointed as Teacher (BPS-14) at posted at Working Folks Grammar Higher Secondary School (Male), Peshawar. On 16.09.2013, he was terminated from service due to lack of requisite qualification for the said post, however, on 25.09.2013, he was reinstated into service and his name was included in the clear list but after rechecking of cleared candidates, the petitioner was found that he did not cover the required criteria and thus he was again terminated vide order dated 13.09.2019. Hence, this petition.
W.P. No.7095-P/2019.
The facts of these petitions, in brief, are that in the year 2011, the petitioners were appointed by the respondents, on different posts, on contract basis, initially for a period of three years extendable on performance. On expiry of contract period, their services were extended till 31st October 2018, however, vide office order dated 13.09.2019, their services were terminated. Now through this petition, the petitioners seek their regularization in light of the judgment dated 25.10.2018, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.347-B/2016.
W.P. No.1668-P/2020.
In essence, in the year 2011/2012, the petitioners were initially appointed on different posts, on contract basis for a period of three years, however, vide office order dated 13.03.2013, their services were terminated. They approached the respondents / department for their reinstatement, but in vain. Thereafter, they filed constitutional petition before this Court, which was dismissed on 27.03.2018. It is averred in the instant petition that other colleagues of the petitioners had filed Writ Petition No.247-B/2016 before this Court, for their regularization, which was accepted vide consolidated judgment dated 25.10.2018, passed in W.P. No.247-B/2016, hence, they also deserve the same relief. Hence, this petition.
W.P. No.1798-P/2020.
The short history of this petition is that 23 posts of Principal (BPS-18) were advertised by the respondents for appointment in Workers Welfare Board. In pursuance thereof, the petitioners applied for the said posts and appeared in the test conducted by the NTS on 24.05.2015. Initially, the matter was delayed by the respondents, however, on 19.02.2019, their interview was conducted. It is averred in the petition that the petitioners were on the top of the merit list but they were not selected/appointed by the respondents. Hence, this petition.
W.P. No.3574-P/2020.
As per contents of this petition, on 01,06.2008, the petitioner was appointed as Mali in the respondents/department. In July 2018, he suffered from Hernia disease, for which, he was operated and due to that reason, he availed leave for about one month. After his recovery, he joined his duty and submitted medical bills for reimbursement, however, he was shocked when he knew about the attachment of his monthly salary as he was marked absent in the attendance register. He requested the respondents/department time and again but in vain. Hence, this petition.
W.P. No.4210-P/2020.
In the years, 2012 and 2013, through different appointment letters, the petitioners were appointed on various posts, on contract basis for a period of three years. They joined their services and performed their duties for a few months, however, their salaries were withheld by the respondents, for which, they approached the department time and again, but in vain, Hence, this petition.
W.P. No.464-P/2021.
The petitioners (10 in number) in this petition were appointed as Teachers in BPS-14 in different districts and- served the respondents/department for more than 09-years and since their appointments, they draw their salaries against the basic pay scale 14 despite the fact that the respondents in its 11th meeting approved I.Com/D.Com classes and created additional posts of Teachers (BPS-17) for the said classes. It is averred in the petition that they being Commerce Teachers are also entitled to the same treatment to draw their salaries against BPS-17. They filed appeal before the concerned authority but no fruitful result. Hence, this petition.
W.P. No.4589-P/2021.
On 30.03.2012, the petitioner was appointed as Teacher in BPS-14 in Working Folds Grammar School, Swat. The respondents/ department advertised some posts of Principal (BPS-18) and conducted the test on 24.05.2015, in which, the petitioner also appeared in the test and secured 59 marks. He appeared in the interview process but remained unaware of the result. Then he filed Constitutional Petition No.1664-P/2020 for declaration of result. On 08.06.2021, the respondents submitted the result in question, and accordingly, the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner is mainly aggrieved of the interview result announced by the respondents. Hence, this petition.
W.P. No.241-P/2022.
The petitioner in the instant petition was initially appointed as Chowkidar in BPS-01 vide order dated 21.03.1995. When, the petitioner was performing his duty as Care Taker (BPS-11) at WFG School, Haripur, his service was terminated vide order dated 12.07.2016 on account of misconduct being involvement/ negligence in the case of sudden death of Mr. Meher Nawaz, Naib Qasid/Class-IV of Working Folks Grammar Higher Secondary School, Haripur due to electric short while repairing the Air Conditioner out of business hours. However, after appeal to the respondents/department and filing of Writ Petition 926-A/2016 by the petitioner, he was reinstated into service w.e.f. 19.02.2020 but the period of his termination i.e. 12.07.2016 to 19.02.2020 was treated as leave without pay vide office order dated 18.02.2020. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred this constitutional petition.
W.P. No.1103-P/2022.
Brief facts of this petition are that vide order dated 13.05.2011, the petitioner was appointed as Elementary Teacher in the respondents/ department for a period of three years. His service was terminated vide office order dated 26.06.2019 on account of submission of fake/bogus degrees.
Hence, this petition.
W.P. No.1174-P/2022.
Main grievance of the petitioners of the instant petition is that they were appointed by the respondents/department on various posts on contract basis for a period of three years extendable on performance and mutual consent, and since their appointment orders dated 20.07.2012, 15.08.2012, 28.09.2012 and 10.04.2012, they were performing their duties with zeal and zest but during the months i.e. June 2014 to September 2014 and one month of October 2013, their salaries were stopped/withheld for the reason best known to the respondents. However, later on, their salaries were released. Feeling aggrieved, they filed appeal before the concerned authority but in vain.
Hence, this petition.
W.P. No.3016-P/2022.
In essence, on 26.09.2009, the petitioner was appointed as Teacher (BPS-14) by the respondents, on contract basis for a period of three years extendable on performance and mutual consent and she was posted at Working Folks Grammar School, Peshawar-II. Vide Notification dated 08.02.2011, the services of the petitioner and other contractual employees from BPS-1 to BPS-15 were regularized.
The petitioner was promoted from BPS-14 to BPS-16 vide officer order dated 22.12.2012. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 17th February 2012, published in daily newspaper Mashriq Peshawar, the petitioner applied for the post of Senior Instructor BPS-17 and after going through all the codal formalities, she was appointed as such and joined the new service. Later on, her designation was changed to Principal (BPS-17). After assuming the charge of the post of Principal (BPS-17) in Vocational Institute for Female Peshawar, she submitted an application for continuity and regularization of previous service, which was accepted vide order dated 17.04.2013 and benefits of her previous service were extended to her. Vide order dated 10.08.2022, her service was suspended with immediate effect on account of unlawfully subletting the residential Flat No.2 at 200 Family Flats, Peshawar. Feeling aggrieved from the above order dated 10.08.2022, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
1. C.O.C. No.38-B/2019 in W.P. No.307-B/2018.
2. C.O.C. No.6-B/2020 in W.P. No.781-B/2016.
3. C.O.C. No.20-P/2020 in W.P. No.1072-A/2016.
4. C.O.C. No.84-P/2020 in W.P. No.819-B/2016.
5. C.O.C. No.102uP/2020 in W.P. No.250-B/2017.
6. C.O.C. No.126-P/2020 in W.P. No.507-B/2016.
7. C.O.C. No.168-P/2020 in W.P. No.498-D/2016.
8. C.O.C. No.169-P/2020 in W.P. No.507-B/2016.
9. C.O.C. No.170-P/2020 in W.P. No.781-B/2016.
10. C.O.C. No.176-P/2022 in W.P. No.1022-P/2017.
11. C.O.C. No.37-P/2019 in. W.P. No.249-B/2017.
12. C.O.C. No.175-P/2022 in W.P. No.818-P/2016.
Through these COCs, the petitioners seek initiation of contempt of Court proceedings against the respondents for not obeying the judgment dated 25.10.2018 of this Court, passed in the connected Writ Petition No.347-B/2016, vide which, the services of the petitioners were ordered to be regularized.
C.O.C. No.181-P/2020 in W.P. No.635-P/2015, Through this petition, the petitioners seek initiation of contempt of Court proceedings against the respondents for not complying with the order' dated 19.12.2018 of this Court, passed in Writ Petition No.635-B/2015, vide which, the service of the petitioner was ordered to be regularized.
C.O.C, No.283-P/2020 in W.P. No.6547-P/2018.
Through this petition, the petitioner seeks initiation of contempt of Court proceedings against the respondents for not acting upon the order dated 24.09.2019 of this Court, passed in Writ Petition No.6547-P/2018. This Court while disposing of the said constitutional petition had observed as under: "At the very outset, the representatives of the respondents submitted at the bar that a proper Committee comprising of six members with the aim and object to examine the cases of employees of the respondents-department and payment of arrears of outstanding salaries to them has been constituted vide notification dated 01.03.2019s (placed on file), which Committee, after thorough scrutiny shall decide their respective cases. When the learned counsel for the petitioners was confronted with the situation, he could not wriggle out of the same. However, he has requested that a proper time frame be given to the Committee to do the needful.
Such being the case, this petition is disposed of having become infructuous. However, an early action in the matter on the part of the respondents preferably within three months would be appropriate as it pertains to the bread and butter of the families of the petitioners".
C.O.C. No.328-P/2020 in W.P. No.3659-P/2016.
Through this petition, the petitioner seeks initiation of contempt of Court proceedings against the respondents for not honouring the order dated 30.04.2020 of this Court, passed in Writ Petition No.3659-P/2018. This Court while hearing the said constitutional petition on 30.04.2020 had observed as under: "Representative of respondents apprises the Court that against the judgment in the writ petition, their CPLA has been dismissed by the apex Court and review against the said order is still pending before the apex Court, with no stay order/suspension proceedings, in view of which notice under Chapter-XX, Rule-1 of Supreme Court Rules, 1980 is given to respondents either to produce restraining order from the apex Court or produce compliance report, in tow. Adjourned to 19.05.2020".
C.O.C. No.591-P/2020 in W.P. No.781-P/2016.
Through this petition, the petitioners seek initiation of contempt of Court proceedings against the respondents for not obeying the order dated 22.11.2017 of this Court, passed in Writ Petition No.781- B/2015, vide which, the services of the petitioner were ordered to be regularized.
C.O.C No.92-P/2021 in W.P. No.24-B/2016.
Through this petition, the petitioner seeks initiation of contempt of Court proceedings against the respondents for not obeying the order dated 22.11.2017 of this Court, passed in Writ Petition No.6547- P/2018. This Court while disposing of the said constitutional petition had observed as under: "Today, at the very outset, it was informed by both the parties that current salary/monthly wages for the period claimed in each petition, has been released to the petitioners whereas the remaining arrears will be paid soon after the funds are released by the Worker's Welfare Fund.
In view of the above, all the writ petitions are allowed with direction to the respondents to pay the arrears to the petitioners within one month positively. Resultantly, the C.O.Cs Nos.416-P/201 7 and 14-B/2017 have become infructuous which are disposed of accordingly".
C.O.C. No.201-P/2022 in W.P. No.5023-P/2013.
C.O.C. No.279-P/2022 in W.P. No.915-P/2021.
Through these petitions, the petitioners seek initiation of contempt of Court proceedings against the respondents for not obeying the order dated 16.09.2021 of this Court, passed in Writ Petition No.915-P/2021. This Court while disposing of the said constitutional petition had observed as under: "At the very outset, the Law Officer on behalf of respondents submitted copy of the judgment of this Court dated 24.03.2021 rendered in W.P. No. 320-P/2021 and requests for referring the matter to the Committee constituted for the purpose.
Thus, without dilating upon the merits of the case, suffice it to say that the issue involved in the writ petition has already been decided by this court hence, the case of petitioners, being identical with them, we deem it appropriate to remit this petition to the Committee to consider it strictly in light of the judgment mentioned ibid. However, it is expected that the respondents shall re- constitute the Committee for looking into the matter of the outstanding salaries of petitioners within 30 days from the date of constitution of the Committee. This petition stands disposed of accordingly".
C.O.C. No.293-P/2022 in W.P. No.571-A/2019.
Through this petition, the petitioner seeks initiation of contempt of Court proceedings against the respondents for not obeying the order dated 21.11.2019 of this Court, passed in Writ Petition No.751- A/2019. This Court while disposing of the said constitutional petition had observed as under: "Learned counsel for the petitioner at the bar that since the issue raised in the petition has already been laid to rest by this Court on 03.10.2019 through a judgment delivered in Writ Petition No.1544- P/2019, whereby the cases of the then petitioners were directed to be placed before the Selection Board for consideration of promotion in accordance with law, therefore, the petitioners be also treated alike.
When confronted with the situation, learned counsel for the respondents conceded the proposition as the petitioner's case is entirely at par with the case of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.1544-P/2015, therefore, we, in the circumstances of the case, direct the respondents to place the case of the petitioner before the Selection Board for his promotion in accordance with law and policy on the matter.
The petition is disposed of in the above terms".
3. We have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties at length and scanned the record with their able assistance.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Workers Welfare Board was created under the statutory law, called the Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971, and therefore, the Federal Government while exercising power under subsection (3) of Section 8 of the Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971 vide SRO/1193(I)/97, framed rules of service called Workers' Welfare Fund (Employees Service) Rules, "1997, and services of the Employees of Board are governed by the said rules, right from their initial appointment, services benefits during the employment, promotion, posting and transfer, and other allied and ancillary facilities which is statutory in nature and if in some matters, these rules are silent, the Government Civil Service Rules shall apply, as is provided therein. It was further submitted that though in majority of cases, the initial appointment order was made on contract basis, however, like permanent service/employment, the probation period was fixed for one year and they have served the education wing of the Board for several years and under the rules, on completion of successful probation or contractual period, their service could not be dispensed with or terminated, and the employer could not violate the statutory rules referred to above. They lastly submitted that the transfer of some of the employees to different places is also illegal and violative of statutory rules.
5. As against that, the learned counsel representing the Board argued that no doubt, Workers'
Welfare Fund (Employees Services) Rules, 1997 is statutory in nature, however, it is applicable only to three cadres namely, Administrative and Ministerial Cadres, Engineering Cadre and Finance and Account Cadre. Teachers, Principals and teaching cadres are not covered by the said rules. He next argued that services of the petitioners are not governed by any statutory rules of employment, therefore, the petitioners cannot invoke the Constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and only remedy available to them to sue for damages, if so advised, and prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
6. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, we are of the view that the only question, which falls for determination before us, is that, whether the services of the petitioners are governed by statutory rules i.e. Workers' Welfare Fund (Employees Service) Rules, 1997 or not, if not, its effect ?
7. We, therefore, take up this issue. It is an admitted fact that Workers Welfare Board is the creation of Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971, and therefore, the Federal Government while exercising power conferred by subsection (3) of Section 8 of the Workers' Welfare Board Ordinance, 1971 vide SRO/1193(I)/97 framed statutory rules of service, called, Workers Welfare Fund (Employees Service)
Rules, 1997, which regulate in a comprehensive manner, the Services of the employees of the Fund, right from the initial appointment, service benefits during employment, promotion, posting and transfer, and other allied and ancillary facilities and if in some matters, these rules are silent, the Government Civil Service Rules shall apply as provided therein.
8. A perusal of Rule 9 with appendix-1 of Workers' Welfare Fund (Employees Service) Rules, 1997 makes it crystal clear that these rules have vividly been made applicable only to the following three cadres: i. Administrative and ministerial Cadre. ii. Engineering Cadre, and iii. Finance and Account Cadre.
9. It will be advantageous to reproduce the said Rule and Appendix-1, as under: -
9. Service and cadres.
Service in the Fund shall consist of different cadres as specified in Appex-I to these rules.
Appendix-1 SR. No. NOMENCLATURE
1. Administrative and Ministerial Cadre
2. Engineering Cadre
3. Finance and Account Cadre
10. Admittedly, Principals, Teachers and Teaching Cadres do not find umbrella/cover by the said rules. The petitioners, who have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, belong to Teaching Cadres. Therefore, they cannot claim protection under the Workers' Welfare Fund (Employees Service) Rules, 1997 being not applicable to them. In this behalf, reference may be made to the judgment of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeals Nos.654 and 655 of 2020, decided on 23.11.2020, wherein, it has been held that Workers' Welfare Fund (Employees Service) Rules, 1997 have expressly been made applicable only to the Administrative and Ministerial Cadre, Engineering Cadre, Finance and Account Cadre. At this stage, we deem it appropriate to reproduce Paras Nos.7, 8 and 9 of the said Judgment, as follows:-
7. There is no denial of the fact that the Workers Welfare Fund (Employees Services) Rules, 1997 have expressly been made applicable only to three cadres as noted above. Teachers, Principles and teaching Cadres are not covered by the said rules. The learned High Court therefore clearly fell in error in relying on the rules in question and assuming that the same were applicable to the Respondent. We have specifically asked the learned counsel for the Respondent if the terms and conditions of his service are governed by any statutory rules and if so whether the said rules were validly framed and promulgated. The learned counsel for the Respondent has not been able to point to any such rules and has attempted to argue that the Rules of 1997 can be made applicable by implication. We are afraid, the said argument is totally misconceived and we are unable to accept the same. Further, it appears that the affairs of the Board have all along been dealt with in an unprofessional, slipshod and disorganized manner at the whims and caprice of various officials holding posts in the Board from time to time and without proper planning and without putting into place necessary administrative and employment structures which has resulted in disastrous consequences including multifarious legal issues which have regularly been brought before the Courts.
8. It was precisely in this background that we had taken cognizance of the matter and referred the matter -to the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to constitute a Committee headed by its Chief Secretary and consisting of independent professionals from the fields of education, administration, finance, human resource and employm ent laws to examine the laws, rules and regulations governing the setting up, operations and functions of the school system set up by the Board. Reference may be made to the judgment dated 16.07.2020 passed in Civil Appeal No.73 of 2020 titled "Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Workers Welfare Board, through its Chairman v. Raheel Ali Gohar and others". We have been informed that the Board has conducted various meetings and deliberated upon the matter and would be submitting its recommendations soon. We have also been informed that the draft service rules for employm ent in schools set up by Worker Welfare Board have been framed and as soon as the report of the Committee including its recommendations are received, such service rules will be promulgated in accordance with law in order to streamline all issues relating to employment of teachers in such schools.
9. We also notice that although the learned High Court disposed of the petitions but a direction was issued to place the case of the Respondent before the Selection Board for consideration for promotion in accordance with law. We have already found that there is neither any law nor rules governing employm ent and terms and conditions of service of teachers, Principals in the schools in question. As such the Selection Board if at all exists neither has any legal basis nor legally recognized criteria available to it to implement the direction issued by the learned High Court. It is also significant to note that in allowing the constitutional petition of the Respondent the learned High Court has gone beyond the prayer and directed that all eligible employees be promoted and their cases also be placed before the Selection Board for consideration in accordance with rules, which rules, we may add are non-existent. Finally, there is no denial of the fact that there is no structure in place supporting a legitimate expectation for promotion as Principal of a school. In the absence of a service structure and a promotion channel put in place on the basis of validly promulgated rules, the Board had good reason and valid basis to advertise posts of Principals and hire them on contract for specified periods. The High Court therefore acted illegally in interfering in an executive function without legally justifiable basis to do so.
11. It has consistently been held by the superior Courts of Pakistan that in the absence of any statutory service rules, the relationship between employer and its employees is that of Master and Servant. In this context, reliance can be placed on the following judgments: i) Muhammad Yusuf Shah v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PLD 1981 SC 224). ii) Raziuddin v. Chairman, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and 2 others (PLD 1992 SC 531). iii) Shahid Khalil v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, Karachi (1971 SCMR 568). iv) Ch. Abdul Rashid v. Capital Development Authority, Islamabad and another (PLD 1979 Lahore 803). v) The Principal, Cadet College, Kohat and another v. Muhammad Shoab Qureshi (PLD 1984 SC 170).
12. It has also consistently been held that mere adoption of rules of the government or their application by reference will not lend a statutory cover or content to these rules as held in the case reported as "The Lahore Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Pir Saif-Ullah Shah" (PLD 1959 SC (Pak)
210) and unreported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan titled "Chairman Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Islamabad and 3 others v. Dr. Mrs. Khalida Razi"
(Civil Appeal No.2070 of 1993).
13. It is observed that impugned action was taken against the petitioners pursuant to the judgment dated 01.03.2022, passed in Civil Review Petitions Nos.660 to 701/2019, wherein, it was held as under:- "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties present, and also the learned Advocate General, KPK, we would dispose of the instant review petitions, by leaving the review petitioners at liberty to, in the event a case is made out against any of the respondent, for questioning his/her appointment/regularization for the reasons as specified herein under, and to proceed against him in accordance with law after issuing appropriate notice: - Reasons
1. That the employee is a third divisioner;
2. That he does not possess the requisite qualifications;
3. That he was overage at time of his appointment, despite allowance/relaxation of 5 years;
4. That his appointment was made during the period when there was a ban on appointments; and
5. That his relevant degree is found to be fake".
14. It is by now settled that an employee of a corporation or company or autonomous institution in the absence of violation of law or statutory rule could not press into service the constitutional jurisdiction for seeking relief relating to the terms and conditions of his service. His remedy lay elsewhere. In this context, we are fortified by the dictum laid down in the following judgments.
(1) Mrs. M. N. Arshad and others v. Miss Naeema Khan and others (PLD 1990 SC 612)
(2) Messrs Malik and Haq and another v. Muhammad Shams ul Islam Chowdhury and 2 others (PLD 1961 SC 531)
(3) Zain-ul-Abideen v. Multan Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Multan (PLD 1966 SC 445)
(4) Abdul Salam Mehta v. Chairman, Water and Power Development Authority and another (1970 SCMR 40)
(5) Lt. Col. Shuja-ud-Din Ahmad v. Oil and Gas Development Corporation (1971 SCMR 566)
(6) The Principal Cadet College Kohat and another v. Muhammad Shoaib Qureshi (PLD 1984 SC 170)
(7) Anwar Hussain v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and another (PLD 1984 SC 194)
(8) Syed Akhtar Ali Bukhari v. State Bank of Pakistan and others (PLD 1977 Lahore 234)
(9) Muhammad Yusuf Shah v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PLD 1981 SC 224) and
(10) The Evacuee Trust Property Board and another v. Muhammad Nawaz (1983 SCMR 1275).
15. For what has been discussed hereinabove, from constitutional and all legal angles, we are of the firmed view that the services of the petitioners are not protected by the statutory rules, referred to above in the preceding para of this judgment and any invasion on the service or relating to their terms and conditions of service, would not entitle them to approach this Court through constitutional petitions.
16. Resultantly, this and connected writ petitions and COCs are dismissed being not maintainable.
However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances, if so advised.