The petitioner, Iftikhar-ul-Haq, was appointed on the 21st of February 1968, as a Programmer/ Systems Analyst in the Computer Centre of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority hereinafter called the Authority) in the pay scale of Rs. 400-50-1,000 plus special pay of Rs. 100.00. He was promoted as System Programmer till further orders in the grade of Rs. 750-75- 1,500 plus Rs. 150.00 as special pay vid, order, dated the 23rd of October 1971 (copy Annexure . `A').
He was reverted vide order, dated the 5th of July 1972 (copy Annexure `E') to his original post.
2. Tile petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court asserting that his reversion amounted to reduction in rent and he could not have been reversed before an opportunity to show-cause was afforded to him.
3. At the preliminary hearing, while admitting the writ petition to a full hearing, Mushtaq Hussain, J.
Passed an order on the 10th of July 1972, observing that if the petitioner had not yet relinquished the charge of the post, he should not be required to do as till the respondent had shown cause against the interim order. In the written statement, the authority submitted that the petitioner being an employee of WAPDA had no Constitutional protection and the relations between him and the Authority were governed by the law of master and servant. It was also averred that the post against which the petitioner had been appointed was not substantive and that it had already been abolished as being unneces--sary.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent also raised a preliminary objection with regard to the jurisdiction of this Court on the basis that WAPDA was not person as contemplated by Article 201 of the Interim Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1972, and, therefore, no writ could be issued against it. I have no hesitation in repel preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of this Court.
The definition of the word 'Person' as given in Article 290 of the Interim Constitution includes any body politic or corporate. The Authority was constituted by the West Pakistan Act (XXXI of 1958 (hereinafter called the Act). It is a body corporate. The object of the Act as given in the pream--ble is "to provide for the unified and coordinated development of the water and. Power resources of West Pakistan." The constitution of the Authority has a completely official complexion. Under section 4 of the Act it is to consist of a Chairman and not more than two members to be appointed by the Government. Their conditions of service, remunerations, re-appointment and the fixation of their tenure after re-appointment rest entirely in the hands of the Government. There is, therefore, as doubt that WAPDA is a person, functioning in connection with the affairs of the Province in a: vital and important public sphere namely, the supply and co-ordination of the resources of Water anal Power.
5. The Supreme Court had dealt with a similar objection in 'The University of Dacca and another v.
Zakir Ahmad' (P D 1966 SC 90It was held by their Lordships that the University of Dacca was an association of persons with a duty cast on it to impart instructions in various branches of learning and being under official control was a person, performing an important function connected with the affairs of the Province of East Pakistan, namely, the spread of Education. Again in 'The Chairman, East Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation, Dacca and another v. Rustam A.I and another' (PLD 1966 SC 848), it was held by their Lordships that the East Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation, Dacca, was a person within the meaning of Article 98 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1962).
6. The next objection of the learned counsel that the relations between the Authority and the petitioner are governed by the law of master and servant cannot be accepted without qualification. As stated above, the authority has been constituted by a statute and its employees, are governed by 'The West Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency an Discipline) Rules of 1966. Rule 3 of the above, Rules catalogues the grounds on which a competent authority may impose one or more penalties mentioned in rule 4. Rule 5 further says that before a penalty is imposed on an employee, the competent authority shall frame a charge, communi--cate it to and call upon the employee concerned to render a written explanation within a specified time. The competent authority may after the receipt of the reply, appoint an Enquiry Officer, senior in rank to the officer/official to be proceeded against and shall after the receipt of the report of the Enquiry Officer pass such orders as it deems necessary. The rules, therefore, bind the authority to hold as inquiry in case penalty is to be imposed upon an employee.
7. The question that falls for determination is as to whether the autho--rity in ordering the reversion of the petitioner without giving him an opportunity to show cause against his reversion, have violated their own Charter.
The relevant file was placed before the Court by the authority at the time of the hearing. Mr. Munawar A.I, the then General Manager, while recommending the promotion of the petitioner had said in his note, dated 13-10-1971 :- "Mr. Haq is otherwise senior on the basis of total length of service and age, and above all his performance and proficiency is far more superior to those of this colleagues."
The proposal was approved by the Member (Finance) on 18th of October 1971. Messrs Muhammad Iftikhar, Afzal Hayat, Javed Iqbal and Ashraf Zia represented against the promotion of the petitioner on the ground that he was junior to them. It appears from the noting at page 22 that the authority had constituted a Board for the selection of suitable candidates for the posts, of programmers/Systems Analysts. The Board prepared a list of twenty top candidates. But appointment letters mere issued only to the first ten candidates. Messrs Ashraf Zia, M. Iftikhar, and Javed Iqbal were placed as Nos. 4, 7 and 10, respectively. The number of Afzal Hayat was 12 and that of the petitioner 13th. As two candidates dropped out, Mr. Afzal Hayat and the petitioner were asked to join the training course. Afzal Hayat had received his orders on the 24th of January 1968, while the petitioner joined later.
8. There were no rules at the relevant time regulating the seniority of the officers or the staff of the Computer Centre. After detailed noting by various officials, it was suggested in the note at pages 39-41 of the file that with a view to fix seniority inter se of the officers of the Computer Centre the result of ' the Training course should be the main guiding feature. According to the noting at page 40 of the file, the petitioner was at the bottom of that list because he did not attend one of the langu--age courses. It was, therefore, suggested that the petitioner's promotion may be set aside, and the vacancy caused by his demotion may not be filed as the Director, Computer Centre, was of the opinion that the Centre was capable of providing work for three Senior Class-I officers only.
The Member (Finance) agreed to these proposals and observed that a provi--sional seniority list be prepared and circulated to all who might file objec--tions. He further observed that the vacancy caused by the reversion of Mr. Iftikharul Haq may be filed up only after the final, seniority list is prepared.
9. The petitioner's counsel vehemently contested the factual position taken by the authority that the post had been abolished. As narrated above, there was a definite suggestion by the office for abolition of the post and the Member (Finance) said that this vacancy may not be filled up till the seniority list was finalised. This would mean -that he agreed to the abolition of this post at least temporarily. We find a further reference at page 52 of the file vide note, dated the 18th of August 1972, to the aboli--petition of the post in the following terms :----- "It would be recalled that it was recommended that the vacancy caused by the demotion of Mr. Iftikharul Haq may not be filled as the work in the Computer Centre does not justify the same. It is, therefore, apparent that the post against which Mr. Iftikharul Haq was promoted was abolished and the questiontherefore, of filling up tile vacancy does not arise till such time as the workload in the Computer Centre has increased and it is necessary to create another Senior Class-I post."
It is, therefore, clear from the above statement of facts that the petitioner has not been reverted on account of any fault attaching to his conduct as an employee of the authority. The WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules of 1966 are, therefore, not applicable to his case. It is now settled that it is only in case of imposition of penalty that a show---cause notice is to be issued to an employee. Where the exigencies of service require the demotion of a person, no show- cause notice is necessary) The words `till further orders' do indicate an indefinite tenure, but they also imply that the appointment is subject to the exigencies of service. It was held by the Supreme Court in Muhammad Ibrahim v. Government of Pakistan (1), that where an order of reversion was not made by way of penalty for misconduct, the Government could pass such an order without giving a show-cause notice. If the order is relatable to exigencies of services, no show-cause notice is necessary.
10. As has been said above, it appears from the noting on the file that the petitioner had not secured any position of advantage vis-a-vis the persons who claim to be senior to him. He was placed at No. 13 in the initial list by the Selection Board and was placed at the bottom after the termination of the period of his training at the Centre. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not contest the correctness of the above position revealed by the office noting. The promotion initially was made under some misconception of fact. The then General Manager, while recommending promotion of the petitioner, perhaps, took into account his previous service. This view has not been accepted by the authority and it has been observed that the petitioner and others who had been interviewed by the Board for purposes of selection as Programmer/System Analyst having severed their connection with their, previous organization, were to be treated as fresh entrants. It was, therefore, open to the authority to examine its order to see whether the promotion of the Particular had been made in consonance with the principles of fairplay and justice.
11. There is another aspect of the case. The post against which the petitioner was promoted has been abolished as three officers were consi--dered enough to tackle with the workload of the Computer Centre. It is not, for this- Court to interfere in the administrative matters of the authority who are the sole Judge of the fact whether or not a post shall continue. In any view of the matter no order can be passed in favour of the petitioner. This writ petition, therefore, is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.