Through the instant writ petition the petitioners, who are contract employees of the National Skills University, Islamabad ("NSU"), impugn the advertisement published by the said university on 07.04.2023 inviting applications for appointment to different posts including the posts of System Administrator, Network Administrator and Data Processor. Furthermore, the petitioners seek a declaration to the effect that the adoption of the Statutes (Appointment, Terms and Conditions of Service) of Mir Chakar Khan Rind University of Technology, Dera Ghazi Khan by the Senate of NSU in its 5th meeting held on 28.02.2023 is unlawful.
2. The record shows that in April 2021, the NSU published an advertisement inviting applications for appointment to different posts including the post of Manager (Network & Modernization), Assistant Director (Systems) and Information Technology Technician/Assistant. The said advertisement provided that the positions mentioned therein are likely to become permanent through the approval of NSU and that the incumbents will have an opportunity to get regularized based on their performance and accomplishments assessed by NSU's Selection Board.
3. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioners participated in the competitive process.
Vide NSU's letters dated 28.03.2022, 22.12.2021 and 22.06.2021, petitioner No.1 (Muhammad Mudasir Ahmed Haqqani) was offered employment as Manager (Network and Modernization), petitioner No.2 (Rana Shariq Ali) was offered employment as Assistant Director (Systems) and petitioner No.3 (Jamshed Rauf Khan) was offered employment as Information Technology Technician / Assistant, respectively. After the petitioners accepted the said offer, they were appointed to the said posts.
The petitioners' appointments were on contract basis for a period of one year. Subsequently, their contract periods were extended.
4. The petitioners' case is that since the advertisement had clearly provided that the advertised positions were likely to become permanent and that they would have an opportunity to get regularized based on their performance and accomplishments, NSU could not have taken steps to undo the petitioners' legitimate expectation to be considered for regularization.
5. The petitioners also assert that the Senate of NSU could not adopt the service Statutes of Mir Chakar Khan Rind University of Technology, Dera Ghazi Khan as this would have the effect of the petitioners not being considered for regularization.
6. NSU has re-designated the posts to which the petitioners had been appointed and has published an advertisement on 07.04.2023 inviting applications for appointment to such re- designated posts. The eligibility criteria for appointment to such posts is different from the one mentioned in the earlier advertisement published in April 2021.
7. The vital questions that need to be answered is whether the petitioners have a vested right for their services to be regularized and whether NSU could be restrained from prescribing a different eligibility criteria for re-designated posts. The answers to both the questions are in the negative. I say so because the question whether the petitioners are entitled for their contractual services to be regularized (or in other words whether they are entitled for their contract appointment to be converted into a permanent one) is to be decided in accordance with the law laid down in the recent past by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It has been enunciated in unequivocal terms that the regularization of services is not a vested right of a contractual employee and therefore such an employee cannot seek the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the employer to convert the contractual nature of the employment into a regular / permanent one. In holding so, reliance is placed on the following case law:- i) Recently, in the case of Province of Punjab Vs. Prof. Dr. Javed Iqbal (2022 SCMR 897), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "13. This Court has held in numerous pronouncements that there is no automatic right of an employee to get his/her past service rendered on contract basis counted towards regular service or regularization. An employee cannot choose the date when he/she wishes to be regularized.
Regularization is the prerogative of the Executive and it cannot be arbitrarily interfered with by the Court. Such interferences militates the mandate provided to the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution and, must be exercised keeping in mind the fundamental principles of judicial review and tracheotomy of powers. Long and satisfactory contractual service does not confer any right on an employee to claim regularization at all or for the matter from an earlier date." ii) In the case of Province of Punjab Vs. Dr. Javed Iqbal (2021 SCMR 767), it was held inter alia that contractual employees enjoy no vested right to regularization much less to be regularized from any particular date. Furthermore, it was held as follows:- "... a contractual employee is appointed under a scheme, which is totally different from that of regular appointment and a contractual appointee does not enjoy the right to be appointed on regular basis or to be readily shifted into the regime of regular appointment. It does not matter if the appointment on contract is through the same process of public advertisement and scrutiny through Punjab Public Service Commission, it is still a contractual appointment for a limited period of time and is different from a regular appointment by virtue of which a person attains the status of a civil servant."
(iii) In the case of Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Workers Welfare Board Vs. Raheel Ali Gohar (2020 SCMR 2068), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held inter alia that it was settled law that the relationship of a contractual employee with his employer is governed by the principle of master and servant and that contractual employees do not have a right to approach a High Court to seek redressal of their grievances relating to regularization. In paragraph 6 of the said report, reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment dated 08.01.2013 passed in civil petition No.4504/2017 and connected matters wherein it was held as follows:- "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 and we are not confronted with any such legal proposition. 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. Resultantly, these petitions are converted into appeals and allowed, and the impugned judgment is set aside". iv) In the case of Muhammad Qasim Vs. Federation of Pakistan (2019 PLC (CS) 1491), the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:- "7. It is our view that the dimensions and parameters of a competitive process for a permanent appointment and a contractual/ temporary appointment are altogether different. Competition for a contractual/temporary employment is not as aggressive and competitive as competition for a permanent employment. Many vying for permanent employment would not bother applying for contractual/temporary employment. This is more so when there is no representation in the advertisement inviting applications for contractual /temporary employment that the same would somehow transform into a permanent employment. If a person employed purely on temporary basis is to be given a permanent employment without any competitive process it would amount to stealing a march on hundreds of thousands of able would-be applicants who did not apply for temporary /contractual employment, but would have applied had they known that the contractual employment would, without any further competitive process, turn into permanent employment. The conversion of a person's temporary/contractual employment into permanent employment without any transparent competitive process, would be a clear violation of Articles 3 and 9 of the Constitution. Equal opportunity in public employments is a constitutional mandate.
The principle of "each according to his ability to each according to his work" can only be achieved by appointing meritorious candidates in the public sector through strict competition. Such competition for a permanent employment in the public sector cannot be given a go-bye simply because a contractual employee, desirous of his employment being made regular/permanent, was given contractual employment through a competitive process. The equality clause enshrined in the Constitution is to be followed scrupulously by the public sector. The youth of this Islamic Republic burning the midnight oil to secure permanent employment in the public sector through an open competitive process would be let down and demoralized if the contractual employment of persons like the appellants is converted into permanent employment without a competitive process. Such a relaxation would be a bad precedent to a large number of qualified people aspiring for permanent employment in the public sector."
8. This Court cannot place a fetter on a university which does not have any statutory service rules from re-designating posts or from changing the criteria for appointment to posts in a university.
The petitioners, being contractual employees, have no vested right in the method of appointment or the qualifications for appointment to posts in the university to remain static for all times to come. In the case of Dr. Muhammad Hussain Vs. Principal Ayub Medical College (PLD 2023 SC 143), it was held that the Government is competent to enhance, alter or amend the prescribed qualification for a particular post which cannot be objected to as qualification for a particular post cannot be kept unchanged for decades to safeguard the interest of a particular incumbent.
9. NSU has already published an advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the posts which according to the petitioners have been re-designated. The petitioners ought to participate in the competitive process and prove that they are worthy of appointment to such posts.
10. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the instant petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine.