MAMOON KAZI, J.- The facts to be noted are that the petitioner was employed in the Sind Social Security Institution, respondent No.2 in this case, as Audit Officer in Grade-10. The petitioner was convicted by Military Court No.4 on the charges of corruption and consequent upon that he was dismissed from service bv respondent No.2. Thereafter the conviction of the petitioner was set aside by DMLA on filig of a review petition by the petitioner. The petitioner then sought his reinstatement in service but without success. Being aggrieved by the action taken by respondent No.2 the petitioner has now come before us in this Constitutional'petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohammad Aslam Butt learned counsel who was appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 and Mr. A.A. Mohammad Ally, Additional Advocate General Sind, who has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1.
At the very outset we would like to point out that this petition is not maintainable. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a civil servant nor he is governed by any statutory rules of Service. The rules by which the petitioner is governed have been made by the Governing Body of the Sind Employees'
Social Security Institution by virtue of powers vesting in it under section 80 of the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinances 1965 (Ordinance X of 1965). Section 80 empowers the Governing Body, subject to the condition of previous publication by Notification, :.o make regulations not inconsistant with the provisions of the said Ordinance or the Rules thereunder and clause (x) of sub-section (2) thereof referers to the powers of the Commissioner with regard to appointment, transfer, promotion, dismissal and other matters affecting the staff of the Institution.
Mr. Mohammad Aslant Butt has invited our attention to the regulations framed by the said Institution in 1976 and Regulation No. XI refers to the matters of termination of service after confirmation. Learned counsel has invited our attention to an office order dated 14.4.75 whereby the Governing Body of the said Institution in its meeting held on 29.3.1975 approved the application of Sind Civil Servants Efficiency & Discipline), Rules 1973 to the employees of the said Institution.
3. It would thus be seen that the employees of the Institution, although they are governed by the Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules which have been adopted by its Governing Body, but notwithstanding the same the rules under which the petitioner is governed in the matters of service and discipline cannot be equaled with statutory rules. The rules have been framed/adopted by the Governing Body of the Institution under the powers vesting in it under section 80 of Ordinance X of 1965. Under such circumstances when there are no statutory rules governing the petitioner the present petition filed by the petitioner would not be maintainable. Reference in this respect may be made to the case of the PRINCIPLE, CADIT COLLEGE KOHAT V. MOHAMMAD SHOAIB OURESHI (P.L.D.
1984 SC 170) wherein the following observations were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court: "It is, therefore, evident that where the conditions of service of an employee of a statutory body are governed by statutory rules, any action prejudicial taken against him in derogation or in violation of the said rules can be set aside by a writ petition. However, where his terms and conditions are not governed by statutory rules but only by regulations, instructions, or directions which the institution or body, in which he is employed, has issued for its iternal use, any violation thereof will not, normally, enforced through a writ petition."
Reference may also be made to the case of ANWAR HUSSAIN v. AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN (P.L.D. 1984 SC 194) and the following observations made by the Supreme Court which appear at page 198 of the report may be reproduced with advantage as follows: "Where a corporation is set up by a statute but the Government does not reserve to itself the power to regulate the conditions of service of tie employees under the corporation and the statute itself also does not prescribe any condition but leaves the matter entirely in the discretion of the coporation who is given the power to frame rules and regulations in that regard so that the employee is left with noprotection under the statute itself, then the corporation must be held to be the sole arbiter in the matter of prescribing the terms and conditions of its employees and competent to deal with them in accordance with the terms and condition so prescribed by it, In such situation the employee cannot claim Ur be a person possessed of any legal character within th meaning of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act and in case of his wrongful dismissal from or termination of service, the principle of master and servant will fully apply and he can only claim damages but not reinstatement to his post.
4. We find that the facts of the present case and the reported cases are more or less identical in as much as that the petitioner is not governed by any statutory rules. Under such circumstances, as we have already pointed out earlier, this petition is not competent. In viewof this it will be futile to go into the merits of the petitioner's case.
In the result, we dismiss this petition but with no order as to costs.