1. ' ALI MUHAMMAD BALOCH, J.---These five petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the points raised in all these petitions are common.
2. ' The petitioners in these petitions are employees of Civil Aviation Authority and were appointed in the year 1992 after they had applied for selection in response to an advertisement published in the newspaper. Thereafter petitioners completed their probationary period successfully and also had undergone some training. On 4-9-1995 the Director, Administration of Civil Aviation Authority issued an order wherein it was shown that the Civil Aviation Authority had planned to conduct tests/interviews of 148 candidates, who were selected in the year 1992, without regard to their merit.
3. By this order it was directed that tests will be followed by interviews and the schedule for holding of interviews was issued in this order. These tests and interviews were planned to be held in respect of 148 members of the staff of Civil Aviation Authority and the petitioners in these five petitions are among them. The First Schedule for the examination was postponed and fresh dates for holding of the tests/interviews were given. These tests/interviews had to take place at Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad, keeping in view the convenience of the employees, who were employed at these places. The petitioners considered this order/call to appear in the interviews and tests violative of their fundamental rights and they have challenged the same by filing these. Constitution petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners had put in service of 3/4 years, had undergone training courses and their pay grades were also upgraded and that the present order directing them to appear in the interviews/tests is a key to their termination of service and, therefore, terming the said order as mala fide, discriminative and illegal, declaration has been sought from this Court to hold that re- appearing for tests and interviews based on the order issued by the respondent was illegal. The petitioners have also sought a prohibitory order to this effect. On pre-admission notice the respondents filed their comments and today we have heard the counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner urged that since the petitioners are confirmed employees, they could not be called again for any tests or interviews and that the action on the part of the respondents was mala fide. Learned counsel for the respondents claimed that as a result. Of investigation carried out by the Federal Anti-Corruption Committee, it was found that at the time of final selection of the petitioners, the merit was disregarded and the petitioners, who were not fit for appointment against the posts, were simply obliged by the Authorities, and that the final report of the Federal Anti-Corruption Committee showed that out of 471 positions, 148 were filed by disregarding the merit, and out of these, 101 were filled on the recommendation of the Minister, and 47 were filled on the recommendation of the Director-General. The petitioners are included in those 148 positions, and therefore, they are, reported by the Federal Anti-Corruption Committee to be irregular, and out of merit appointments. On receiving such report, the Civil Aviation Authority decided to scrutinise the merit of the said 148 employees, who included the petitioners and to regularise their appointments, on merit. Further contention of the counsel for the respondents is that the Civil Aviation Authority is created by an Ordinance and has got its own Service Regulations, passed by its Board of Directors regulating the candidates of the service of its employees. The Regulations governing the service of the petitioners are not statutory regulations, and that therefore, the position of the petitioners is that of serving under contract of service and are governed by the principles of master and servant.
4. ' We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. The main thrust for the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the maxim of "audi alterm partem" has been violated as the petitioners are being condemned unheard and that they were not given any chance of being heard before calling them to appear in the tests/interviews. In support of these contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the case of Mrs.Anisa Rehman v.
5. PIAC (1994 SCM R 2232), in which the petitioner was an employee in PIA, and she was rverted from Pay Grade-7 to Pay Gade-6. The reversion was challenged in the Constitution petition on the ground that before reverting her, she was not heard and, therefore, it was violation of the principles of natural justice. On dismissal of her petition, she filed an appeal in the Supreme Court, which was decided by the reported judgment and appeal was allowed on the ground that she had a right to be heard. In the present case facts are distinguishable as neither the petitioners have been reverted nor any adverse order has been passed in respect of their emoluments, reversion or pay group. The petitioners are only required to appear in a fresh test/interview, owing to the finding of investigation by Federal Anti-Corruption Committee with regard to their merit. We, therefore, most respectfully hold that the facts of the case of Mrs. Anisa Rehman and the present case are distinguishable. The notice to the petitioners to appear for tests/interviews cannot be equated with an order of reversing, and therefore, we hold that principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the reported case, is not attracted in the present case. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the rule of matter and servant is applicable in the present case and there has been no violation of law or any statutory rule, hence the Constitutional jurisdiction to issue any writ against the respondents is not called for. Apart from relying on the observation in this very case of Mrs. Anisa Rehman, the counsel for the respondents relied upon the case of Anwar Hussain v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan (PLD 1984 SC 194) and stated that, the respondent-Authority was the sole arbiter in the matter of prescribing the terms and conditions of the service for its employees, and was competent to deal with them in accordance with the terms and conditions so prescribed. Here the petitioners have not shown, if any term and condition of the contract of service has been violated which in turn may have attracted the provisions of some statute or rule to give them right to file this petition on Constitutional side. In this case the petitioners are governed by the rules of service framed by the Board of Directors of Civil Aviation Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority is a statutory body having come into existence under an Ordinance (No,XXX of 1982). The rules governing the service of the petitioners are called "CAA Rules and Regulations". It is also clear that the remedy of appeal is available to the petitioners under Regulation No,7.15(3) (a) (d) of CAA Rules and Regulations). In this case, the petitioners apprehend that they are going to be terminated from their services by the notice for appearing in tests. We think that this petition is premature as the petitioners only apprehend their ultimate termination which presently is not spelt out from the notice for appearance in tests/interviews. The petitioners, contention is preponderous. Merely because they have been called upon to appear in tests/interviews, cannot be said that their services will be terminated. If it so happened, they could seek remedy by way of appeal. As regards the contention that they have remained in service long enough, to be again called for tests/interviews, we feel that it is between the servants and the master and in case the master violates the terms of the contract, the petitioners can sue him for damages and losses and can also seek remedy from a Civil Court. The counsel from the respondents has also .Invited or attention to the decision of this Court in an unreported judgment passed in Constitution Petition No, D-377/91. In this judgment all the petitioners were employees of Civil Aviation Authority and they had challenged the appointment of some other direct appointees in a higher pay grade, contending that they were entitled to be promoted to the higher pay grade themselves and that the selection of those employees on a higher pay role was derogatory to the rules of the Establishment Division of the Government of Pakistan. In this case the question, which was determined, was whether the petition under Article 199 of the Constitution was maintainable as Civil Aviation Authority was a corporate body. It was held that the employees of CAA were governed by the Regulations framed by the Civil Aviation Authority itself under the provisions of the Ordinance under which the Civil Aviation Authority was created viz. Ordinance XXX of 1982. The Regulations of services of CAA were held not to be equated with statutory rules and consequently it was held that the employees of CAA cannot resort of the remedy through a writ petition in case of violation of such rules. Therefore, it was held that the Constitution petition was not maintainable ' In the result, we find no force in these petitions and, therefore, dismiss the same in limine. The Misc.
6. Applications filed alongwith these petitions are also, therefore, dismissed.