S. M. ATTIQUE SHAH, J.- Through the petition in hand, the petitioner has prayed as under :- > Declare the petitioner lawfully appointed against the post of Chief Executive Officer of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Oil & Gas Company Limited (KPOGCL) by strength of offer for appointment dated 19.12.2022 and acceptance of offer dated 29.12.2022. > Declare the withdrawal and revocation of the offer for appointment dated 03.02.2022 after its acceptance on 29.12.2022 as illegal, without jurisdiction and without lawful authority and with no effect on the rights of the petitioner besides being arbitrary, discriminatory and vague. > Direct the respondents to abstain from creating hurdles in the way of petitioner while he fulfills his obligations in accordance with the terms. and conditions of appointment as CEO of the company.
2. As per averments made in the petition, respondent KPOGCL advertised certain positions of various categories including the post of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in a local daily newspaper way back in the year 2021. Petitioner being eligible and qualified applied for the said post and after completion of codal formalities, he was selected as a CEO of the company and issued him Offer of Appointment dated 19.12.2022, which was accordingly accepted by the petitioner, however, the said Offer of Appointment was withdrawn and revoked by respondent No.5 via email dated 03.02.2023 on the ground that his former employer (British Petroleum) did not verify his last position as "d- Managing Director and General Manager Operations" and that is how, the petitioner is before the court with his grievance.
3. Pursuant to the direction of the court, respondents filed their para-wise comments, wherein they resisted the issuance of the desired writ while maintaining that the petitioners' former employer did not verify his last position as d-Managing Director and General Manager Operations.
4. Arguments heard and available record perused.
5. Admittedly, the respondent-company had advertised the post of Chief Executive Officer on contract basis for a term of three years and pursuant thereto, the petitioner was given Offer of Appointment with certain terms and conditions on 19.12.2022, after completion of the necessary codal formalities, which was accordingly accepted by him. Clause 15 of the said terms and conditions being relevant is reproduced herein below for ready reference: "This appointment letter is being issued to you on the basis of the information and credentials furnished by you in your application. In case of any deviation in your personal details, the Chairman of the Board may take such action as he deems fit in his sole discretion, including termination of your employment with immediate effect and without compensation"
6. Record reflects that according to the said clause of terms and conditions of Offer of Appointment letter dated 19.12.0222 issued to the petitioner, verification of his credentials were initiated by the respondent-company and accordingly, the entire details of his service rendered in the British Petroleum, as mentioned in his Application Form, were sent to the British Petroleum through an email on 02.01.2023 for verification and confirmation. Pursuant thereto, the VP, P&C Services UK, Europe and Africa informed the respondents on 02.01.2023 that the petitioner has been remained their employee since 3.9.2007 to 31.08.2022 and the last position held by him in the British Petroleum was as "Facilities Engineer". Such information negates the information provided by the petitioner in his Application Form that he was holding the last position in the British Petroleum (Egypt) as "d-Managing Director & General Manager Operations". As such, the respondent- company directed the petitioner through an email dated 3.1.2023 to clarify the matter within 3-5 days, which he duly replied on 16.01.2023, wherein, he has given references of letters issued by BP HR Director, Managing Director (GUPCO) and; Managing Director, Pharonic Petroleum Company (PhPC). His reply was, however, not satisfactory and as such, the Offer of Appointment issued to the petitioner was withdrawn / revoked by the respondent-company through impugned email dated 03.02.2023.
7. Main stance of the learned counsel for petitioner before us is that the respondent-company has confirmed the last position held by the petitioner as "d-Managing Director & General Manager Operations" from British Petroleum Office situated at London instead of Egypt and that is how, the information, so communicated to the respondent-company by the British Petroleum London regarding his last position held by him at British Petroleum Egypt cannot be taken into account being inquired from the wrong office. Notwithstanding such submissions, when asked to show any document in support of his claim qua holding last position in the British Petroleum as "d-Managing Director & General Manager Operations", learned counsel for petitioner could not refer to any authentic and relevant document except the letters as mentioned by him in his reply. In this backdrop of the case, we understand that the information furnished by the petitioner in his Application Form regarding his work experience could not verify from the concerned quarter per clause 15 of the terms and conditions of his Offer of Appointment. In the given facts and circumstance of the case, the respondent-company has rightly withdrawn / revoked the Offer of Appointment of the petitioner through the impugned email.
8. So far as the question of maintainability of the instant petition is concerned, though the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this court rendered in case titled Shahid Iqbal Vs. Governemnt of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and Sectary to Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Industries, Commerce and Technical Education Department, Peshawar reported as 2021 PLC (C.S.) 711, but the said judgment was in turn challenged before the august Apex Court in Civil Petitions No.2854 & 3187 of 2021, which was allowed and the ibid judgment of this court was set aside vide judgment dated 07.06.2023. Perusal of the ibid judgment of the august Apex Court reflects that the writ petition in contractual matters is not maintainable, especially when the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent- company is that of master and servant. Only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the court of plenary jurisdiction for damages. Thus, instant petition is not maintainable on this score alone keeping in view the contractual status of the petitioner notwithstanding the merits of the case.
9. Such being the position, this petition without any substance stands dismissed.