' I. MAMMUD, J.-This Constitutional Petition raises a preliminary short question whether an employee of a Statutory Corporation is entitled to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of, the Pakistan Constitution for redress against his dismissal from service.
2. The petitioner, Muhammad Azam Khan was employed as Research Officer, by the State Bank of Pakistan on 7-7-1966. His appointment which was initially on a temporary basis, was later confirmed. On 7-10.1969, the petitioner was granted one year's study leave for prosecuting higher studies abroad. Under the State Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Regulations No, 41-B (xix), he was required to execute an agreement to continue to serve the Bank for a period of at least 5 years after the expiry of the period of study leave, as well as to furnish a surety bond from two sureties undertaking to pay Rs, 10,000 as liquidated damages, in case of breach of the said agreement. The petitioner failed to execute the required Agreement and the bond, despite reminders, and it is alleged that he also left Pakistan without handing over charge. Therefore, on 13-7-1971, the State Bank of Pakistan sent a charge-sheet to the petitioner, who at that time was enrolled as a Ph. D. Students in the University of Utah, U. S. A. And he was called upon to answer the charges in writing or if he wished in person, within a month and forward the same to Mr. Abdul Rehman, Deputy Controller, Exchange Co atrol Department, State Bank of Pakistan, who had been nominated as Enquiry Officer, under the aforesaid Regulations The petitioner submitted his explanation, which was rejected. Accordingly, he was dismissed from service by the Deputy Governor, State Bank of Pakistan by an Office Order No, 73 dated 17-6-1972. The petitioner submitted an appeal to the Governor, State Bank of Pakistan, but it was also dismissed. On these facts, the petitioner has filed the present Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973) for a declaration that his dismissal from service is without lawful authority and of no legal effect and for an order for his restoration to office as Research Officer.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that the petition is not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner being an employee of a statutory corporation and not holding a public office, is not entitled to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court by filing a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution for an order declaring his removal from service as wrongful without lawful authority and of no legal effect and for an order for his restoration to the said office. In support of this submission, counsel referred to the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court reported in R. T. H. Janjua v. National Shipping Corporation (1). In that case the petitioner was employed an Regional Officer at Lahore by the National Shipping Corporation, a statutory Corporation incorporated under the National Shipping Corporation Ordinance, 1963. After following the prescribed procedure and hearing the petitioner, the Enquiry Committee found certain charges stood proved against him, as a result of which the petitioner was removed from service. He moved the Lahore High Court in writ jurisdiction but it was summarily dismissed. On Special Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the writ petition by an employee of a statutory corporation seeking redress against his dismissal does not lie, if the aggrieved incumbent did not hold a "public office". The post of Regional Officer of the National Shipping Corporation held by the petitioner was not a public or statutory office created by the National Shipping Corporation Ordinance, 1963. Their Lordships referred to the description of "public office" in Ferris in his book on "Extraordinary Legal Remedies", p. 161 as "A public office is the right authority and duty created and conferred by law by which an individual is vested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the Government to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public, for the term and by the tenure prescribed by law. It implies a delegation of a portion of the sovereign power. It is a trust conferred by public authority for a public purpose, embracing the ideas of tenure, duration, emolument and duties."
' Their Lordships held that as the petitioner did not hold a "public office" but rather a contractual office or an office of a private nature, a writ petition did not lie and that the ordinary law of master and servant applied to such a case and that the only remedy available to the aggrieved servant is to sue for damages for wrongful dismissal, Their Lordships referred to and discussed a long line of judgments of the Supreme Court in support of their view.
4. The above judgment of the Supreme Court is directly applicable to the facts of the instant case.
The post of Research Officer, State Bank of Pakistan, is clearly not a public or statutory office. It has neither been created, nor even mentioned in the State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956. Nor does A the incumbent of such office perform any of the delegated sovereign functions of the Government for the benefit of the public. It is a post created by the Central Board of the State Bank of Pakistan in exercise of powers vested in it by section 54 (2) ( j ) of the State Bank of' Pakistan Act, 1956.
5. The petitioner, who appeared in person, referred to a ground mentioned in the petition that the State Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Regulations, which required the petitioner to execute an agreement and furnish a surety bond, was ultra vires. It was therefore, contended that a Constitutional Petition lies against a statutory Corporation like the State Bank of Pakistan, which is undoubtedly, "a person" as defined in Article 19) (5) of the Constitution for the purpose of challenging vires of rules under which the action for the petitioner's removal from service had been taken. No doubt in an appropriate case, the State Bank of Pakistan would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. But the question is whether the petitioner, as an employee of a statutory Corporation not holding a public {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1974 SC 144 {{FOOT NOTE}} ',office, has a legal right to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Which the above discussion shows that he does not have. A similar argument was repelled in The Chairman, East Pakistan Industrial Development ,Corporation, Dacca and another v. Rustom All and another (1) and in Janjua's case above referred to.
6. For the foregoing reasons, we accept the preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition and hold that this petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is dismissed. However, we will leave the parties to bear their own costs. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1966 SC 848 {{FOOT NOTE}}