' SABIHUDDIN AHMAD, J.--By this order we propose to dispose of the above three petitions involving the similar questions of facts and law.
' On different dates between October 1995 and October, 1996 the respondent No,1 i,e, Government of Sindh appointed 84 Lecturers, including the twelve petitioners in C.P. No,D-215 of 1997, three petitioners in C.P.No,D226 of 1997, and the sole petitioner in C.P. No,D-292 of 1997 on contract basis either for a period of one year or two years, to teach various subjects in different Colleges in the Province. Their orders of appointment explicitly stating that they were appointed on contract basis for specific duration, contained the terms of their contract and inter alia, provided that they would not contribute towards the general provident fund and their contract would be terminated at any time before the expiry of the period on one month's notice from either side or payment of one month's pay in lieu thereof. According to the petitioners the Care-taker Cabinet installed in November, 1996, apparently took a policy decision to dispense with the services of all the Lecturers appointed on contract basis and consequently the services of all the petitioners were terminated vide standard order dated 23-2-1997 issued by the Director of College Education, Hyderabad and Sukkur Regions. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the petitioners have approached this Court seeking, inter alia, restoration in service till the selectees of Public Service Commission were made available.
2. Attempting to satisfy us on the question of our jurisdiction to entertain these petitions, Mr.Rasool Bux Umer, learned counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to the provisions of sections 2(b)
(ii) of the Sindh Civil Servants Act and pointed out that person holding civil post in connection with the affairs of the Province, who were employed on contract, excluded from the definition of civil servants and only civil servants as defined in the aforesaid Act could invoke the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal established under the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The contention is indeed correct and the petition, as such, cannot be deemed to be barred under Article 212 of the Constitution.
3. Nevertheless, the factum of employment of contract presents another answer unsurmountable difficulty for the petitioners. It has been consistently held by our Superior Courts that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be exercised for enforcing contractual obligations. Admittedly, the petitioners do not enjoy any statutory rights as to protection of tenure which could be enforced through these proceedings. In a series reported decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court, which have been noticed in the pronouncement of the Court, in the case of Anisa Rehman v. P.I.A. 1994 SCM R 2232 a clear distinction has been maintained to the effect that if an employee seeks the protection of a right conferred by statutory or statutory rules or seeks to enforce an obligation arising under the law, he can obtain the relief of reinstatement through a constitutional petition or even a civil suit.
On the other hand when his claim is founded upon an alleged breach of the terms of a contract of appointment or an instrument which can be treated as part of contract of employment the traditional of master and servant rule i,e, non-statutory regulations etc. Would be attracted and his only remedy is to claim damages for breach of contract as contract of service cannot be specifically enforced.
4. The above principle, in our humble view, would apply not only to employments in statutory Corporation but even to contractual appointments made by the Government itself, as has been held in the latest pronouncement of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Obaidullah v.
Habibullah PLD 1997 SC 835. In the aforesaid case the petitioner had claimed a declaration and permanent injunction in respect of his employment in the Public Health Engineering Department, acquired in consideration of transfer of some land made by his father to the Department.
Sustaining the findings of the Courts below, the Honourable Supreme Court held that such contracts were not specifically enforceable.
5. We are indeed conscious of the principle which has lately evolved as a rule in our public law system that even if the performance of their contractual obligation the Government or Public Officer must act fairly, honestly, justly and without discrimination and in the event of their failure to do so the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court may be attributed in appropriate case. The pronouncement of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Shaukat Ali and others v.
Government of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 342 may be referred to in this context. Nevertheless the impugned action appears to have been taken by way of uniform policy measure and it has not been shown that any selective process of retaining some Lecturers and dispensing with services of others was carried out. Indeed, the petitioners have alleged discrimination and violation of Article 25 of the Constitution but the only ground urged is that while medical officers appointed on contract were allowed to continue in service, the services of Lecturers were dispensed with. The principle of equality and equal protection of law is always subject to rational classification and we do not see how the petitioners performing one kind of service could equate themselves with medical officer performing altogether different nature of service. The classification/distinction between Lecturers and Doctors is perfectly intelligible and we are of the view that the Government could take different policy decisions in dealing with either class of contract employees.
6. In any event even if we were to hold that the termination of petitioners services was illegal, without having been appointed for a fixed duration with no legal right to continue in service beyond the expiry of such duration they could at best claim emoluments for the unexpired period of their employment and such relief could only be obtained through a civil suit. Moreover, we have also noticed that these appointments were not made after public advertisement in terms of the direction of the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Jabbar Memon 1996 SCM R 1349, which are also applicable to appointments made under contract as held by the Honourable Court in the case of Obaidullah v. Habibullah, quoted above. As such the petitioners are not entitled to equitable discretionary relief either. For the aforesaid reasons the above petitions are dismissed in limine.