ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN). ---Mr. Muhammad Tasneem Saeed, the appellant in this case, was appointed as Demonstrator in Mirage Rebuild Factory (M,.R.F.) Intermediate College Kamra, vide letter, dated 2nd February 1991. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the allegations that he publicised the contents of a letter that was presumed to have been written to him by as fellow lady teacher, and therefore, the appellant made overtures to her and later propagated that she was fond of him and wanted to marry him. Consequently, he was issued show-cause nptice. The appellant replied to this show-cause notice and the competent Auth6rity by order, dated 21st October, 1996 terminated the services of the appellant. He filed departmental appeal to the Managing Director, M.R.F., P.A.C., Kamra, but the same was rejected vide letter, dated 12th November, 1996. He then filed this appeal before the Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
2. The appeal was admitted and notices were issued to the respondents. Comments have been filed on behalf of the Chairman, Managing Committee, M.R.F. Degree Science College, through the Principal of the College, wherein legal objection of jurisdiction has been raised. Therefore, before we come to merits of the case, we would like to settle this legal objection first whether the appellant is a civil servant or not.
3. Mr. Rao Fazal Khan Akhtar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the competent Authority of this College is a uniformed officer and the institution is running on the pattern of P.A.F.
Model Inter-College, Sargodha and other like institutions. He has referred to a judgment of this Tribunal in Appeal No. 256(L) of 1994 (Malik Muhammad Pervaiz Akhtar v. Managing Committee, P.A.F. Model Inter-College, Sargodha), decided on 31-10-1995, wherein it has been held that employees of such Colleges/institutions are civil servants. It is further argued that leave to appeal has been granted by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. He submitted that in these circumstances, it would be just and proper if this appeal is decided after the decision by the Supreme Court on the point of jurisdiction.
4. Col. (R.) Hidaytullah Sikandari, Principal submitted that there is much difference between the P.A.F. And M.R.F. College. He argued that this College is funded by its own funds and they are not getting any kind of assistance or grant from the Government, therefore, it is a private institution and its employees are not civil servants. In support of his submissions, he referred to the relevant provisions of the terms and conditions of service of the Teaching staff.
5. There are so many educational institutions which are being run by private organisations and from their own funds, such as, Grammar Schools and some public schools though in the Board of Governors some officers are nominated from the Government, but directly Government has no control over such institutions nor grant is paid to them. In the instant case, definite plea has been taken that this educational institution is not funded by the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Defence or any other Government Agency. Col. (R.) Hidayatullah Sikandari, categorically stated at the bar that even grant is not being taken from the P.A.F. Or M.R.F. In the comments, the respondents have taken the following points with regard to jurisdiction: "2. M.R.F. Degree Science College is a self-financing private institution which is run under the control of Managing Committee. As per terms and conditions of employment, accepted and signed by employees at the the of induction, the decision of the committee is final and has to be abided by all members of the staff.
3. The college pays salaries to its staff from its private funds without any involvement of the Government exchequer, nor it receives funds from any of the Government quarters.
4. The college is headed by a retired Colonel from the Army who has been employed as Principal and is being paid out of the college private funds. Hence, no serving officer in uniform is directly involved running the administration of the college.
5. Since Mr. Tasneem Saeed was a private servant of M.R.F. Degree Science College and was getting his pay from the college private fund, as such he cannot be called a civil servant according to law.
To this, Mr. Rao Fazal Khan Akhtar, learned counsel for the appellant could not be able to explain or prove if the Government is contributing any amount to this educational institution, but he only submitted that the administrative control of the college is under uniformed officer. Let us examine the definition of the civil servant as contemplated in section 2(1)(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and- it reads as under:-- "2(1)(b). 'civil servant' means a person who is a member of an All Pakistan Service or of a civil service of the Federation, or who holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation, including any such post connected with defence, but does not include--
(i) a person who is on deputation to the Federation from any Province or other authority;
(ii) a person who is employed on contract, or on work-charged basis or who is paid from contingencies; or (i.e) a person who is a 'worker' or 'workman' as defined in the Factories Act, 1934 (XXV of 1934), or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (VIII of 1923). "
Such a question had come up before this Tribunal in Appeal No. 379(R) of 1986 (Miss Naeema Khan v. Ministry of Education and others), decided on 9-3-1988. In that case, the appellant was working in Islamabad Model College, constituted under the Resolution and being run by the Board of Governors of which the Chairman was the Secretary, Ministry of Education and other Members were Government officials. The Tribunal held the view that employees of the Islamabad Model Colleges/Schools were civil servants. The judgment of the Tribunal was challenged in the Supreme Court in the case ofMrs. M.N. Arshad and others v. Miss Naeema Khan and others (PLD 1990 SC 612) and the Supreme Court held that Islamabad Model Colleges/Schools established under the Resolution were working in connection with the 'affairs of the Federation' and its employees were civil servants and amenable to jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal. But in the instant case, this educational institution has got its own terms and conditions for the teaching staff, being run by the Board of Governors, i.e. The Managing Committee of the College and its employees are not working in connection with the 'affairs of the Federation' and as such are not civil servants. The learned counsel for the appellant has based his claim on the judgment of this Tribunal in Appeal No. 256(L) of 1994 (Malik Muhammad Pervaiz Akhtar v. Managing Committee, P.A.F. Model Inter- College, Sargodha. In that appeal one of the point which persuaded the Tribunal, was that during the arguments it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that in 1994 a sum of Rs.4 lacs was budget to the College by the Ministry of Defence; but in the present case this institution is being run by private funds, perhaps, from collection of fees, etc. But no grant is being given by the Federal Government. Let us examine the terms and conditions of the, teaching staff, which was duly accepted and signed by the appellant at the the of his joining service under the College. Under paragraph 18 it is clearly provided that no member of the staff shall on retirement be entitled to any pension or bonus. Under paragraph 24 "Status of M.R.F. Degree Science College", it is provided that it is a self-financing private institution, which is run under the control of Managing Committee.
The decision of Chairman, Managing Committee is final and cannot be referred to any Government agency for redress. It is thus clear that this- educational institution has got its own rules, which have neither been gazetted nor have the approval of the Federal Government.
However, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Principal of the College, who is a retired Colonel, has been given the benefit of pension and gratuity, but this point does not advance the case of the appellant and cannot help him to become a civil servant for the purposes of Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Moreover, we have gone through the appointment order of the appellant. He was appointed on probation for one year and it is specifically mentioned that he will be confirmed for retention in service at the end of a year of satisfactory service with the institution; and in para. 3 it is clearly mentioned that after his confirmation in service, if it is decided to dispense with his services, he will be given one month's notice or one month's pay. From these provisions, it is- clear that these are the terms and conditions of Government servants, but relate to private institution where they have got their own terms and conditions for their staff. The appellant accepted these terms and conditions having the knowledge that this institution had got the status of a private institution. In these circumstances, without going into merits or demerits of the case, we are of the view that the appellant is not a civil servant and as such cannot invoke jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being not maintainable, but with no order as to costs.