Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner, Muhammad Rizwan Bari, impugns letter dated 10.03.2023 from Iqra University, whereby the petitioner's employment contract was terminated pursuant to clause 8 thereof.
2. The facts essential for the disposal of the instant petition are that vide letter dated 11.10.2022, the petitioner was employed as Associate Professor in the Business Administration Department of Iqra University. On 17.02.2023, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner requiring him to submit a written explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for having "questioned the decision of the competent authority regarding the change of signatory status of the campus." Through another notification dated 17.02.2023, Iqra University directed the petitioner to immediately leave the premises of the said university. The said show cause notice and notification dated 17.02.2023 was assailed by the petitioner before this Court in writ petition No.766/2023. This Court has suspended the operation of the notification dated 17.02.2023 whereby the petitioner had been asked to leave the premises of Iqra University. Subsequently, on 10.03.2023, Iqra University withdrew the show cause notice dated 17.02.2023 as well as the letter whereby the petitioner had been asked to leave the premises of the University. On the very same day i.e., 10.03.2023, Iqra University terminated the petitioner's employment contract. The petitioner has assailed Iqra University's letter dated 10.03.2023, whereby his employment contract was terminated, in the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after narrating the facts leading to the filing of the instant petition, submitted that the petitioner's employment contract could not have been terminated without the approval of the Iqra University's Board of Governors; that since Section 11(1)(viii) of Iqra University Ordinance, 2000 makes it one of the powers of the Board of Governors to appoint teachers, researchers and officers on the recommendation of the Selection Board, it is only the Board of Governors that could have terminated the petitioner's employment contract; that Section 11(1)(ix) gives the power to the Board of Governors to remove from service any employee of the University; and that since the impugned letter dated 10.03.2023 has not been issued with the approval of the Board of Governors, the same is liable to be set-aside in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
4. I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have pursed the record with his able assistance. The facts leading to the filing of the instant petition have been set out in sufficient detail in paragraph 2 above and need not be recapitulated.
5. It is not disputed that vide letter dated 11.10.2022, the petitioner was appointed as Associate Professor in the Business Administration Department of Iqra University. Clause 8 of the terms and conditions of the petitioner's appointment is reproduced herein below:- "8. Termination of Services: The termination of this employment contract will require a prior notice of six months from either side. In lieu of notice period amount equivalent to six-month salary will be provided by either party."
6. True, the petitioner had been issued a show cause notice and he had been asked to leave the premises of Iqra University, but the said show cause notice and the letter whereby he was asked to leave the premises of the said University stand withdrawn on 10.03.2023.
7. The vital question that needs to be determined is whether the petitioner can invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court to challenge Iqra University's letter dated 10.03.2023 whereby his employment contract was terminated.
8. Since the petitioner was a contractual employee, the instant writ petition filed by him against the termination of his services is not maintainable. It is a master's prerogative to terminate a servant's contractual appointment if the former does not find the latter's performance to be satisfactory.
Such termination can take place in accordance with the terms and conditions of the employment contract. A contractual employee cannot insist for a regular inquiry to be held regarding the employer's satisfaction with the employee's performance. In the case at hand, the impugned letter dated 10.03.2023, whereby the petitioner's employment contract was terminated does not, in any manner, stigmatize him.
9. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, can neither declare the termination of the petitioner's contractual employment to be unlawful nor hold that his employment contract continues to subsist. The contractual nature of the petitioner's employment made his relationship with Iqra University as that of master and servant. This being so, if the petitioner feels that the termination of his employment contract was unlawful or based on malafides, at best, he could file a suit for damages, subject to law. It is well settled that a contractual employee cannot file a writ petition seeking his reinstatement in service. Reference in this regard may be made to the following case law:-
(i) Recently in the case of Chairman NADRA, Islamabad Vs. Muhammad Ali Shah (2017 SCMR 1979), it has been held that a contractual employee of a statutory organization cannot invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution.
(ii) The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited Vs. Iqbal Nasir (PLD 2011 S.C. 132), held as follows:- "All the employees having entered into contracts of service on the same or similar terms and conditions have no vested right to seek regularization of their employment, which is discretionary with the master. The master is well within his rights to retain or dispense with the services of an employee on the basis of Satisfactory or otherwise performance. The contract employees have no right to invoke writ jurisdiction, particularly in the instant case where their services have been terminated on completion of period of contract." (Emphasis added)
(iii) In the case of the Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Vs. Muhammad Azam Chatha (2013 SCMR 120), it has been held as follows:- "In addition to it, it is a cardinal principle of law that a contract employee instead of pressing for his reinstatement to serve for the leftover period can at best claim damages to the extent of unexpired period of his service."
(iv) In the case of Trustees of the Port of Karachi Vs. Saqib Samdani (2012 SCMR 64), it has been held as follows:- "Evidently the above letter reflects that the respondent was in employment on contract basis, hence no vested right was created in his favour for reinstatement in service. It was not the case where the respondent was appointed as a regular employee against any particular quota to give him a valid cause of action. Equally, the impugned judgment is also silent that termination of service of the respondent violated any of his rights, therefore, in our view his reinstatement under the impugned judgment does not appear to have been validly ordered." (Emphasis added)
(v) In the case of Syed M. Yahya Vs. First Credit and Investment Bank Limited (2009 UC 656), it has been held inter alia that contractual employment containing specific terms and conditions of service would exclude the application of a general terms and conditions of service applicable to non-contractual employees. Furthermore, it was held that a contractual employee could not invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution against his termination from service in accordance with the specific terms and conditions of service contained in the contract.
(vi) In the case of Muhammad Waqas Gul Vs. Water and Power Development Authority (2015 PLC (C.S.) 144), it has been held as follows:- "Without going into the question whether the aforesaid clauses will automatically dispense with requirement of rule of natural justice, suffice it to say that non issuance of notice of hearing to the petitioners, will not entitle the petitioners, for revival of their contract of service, rather the remedy of the petitioners, if any, for wrongful termination would be for damages to the extent of unexpired period of their services, before the competent court of law."
10. The petitioner through the instant writ petition has raised a grievance regarding the terms and conditions of his employment with the respondents. Since the petitioner's employment with the respondents was contractual in nature, I hold that the instant petition is not maintainable and the same is, therefore, dismissed in limine.