1. ' SAIYED SABED ASHHAD, J.---This Constitutional petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of Notification No SOI(S&GAD)-2/21/97, dated 25th March, 1997 issued by respondent ' No,1 whereby notification of even number dated 10-3-1997 issued by the aforesaid Department re- employing the petitioner on contract for a period of four years as Chairman, Sindh Board of Technical Education was put in abeyance till further orders.
2. ' The brief facts requisite for disposal of this Constitutional petition are that the petitioner was a civil servant and had retired from the post of Director, Technical Education, Government of Sindh, on 12.2.1997 on attaining the age of superannuation. Respondent No,1 on account of the experience, knowledge and expertise of the petitioner in the field of technical education, re-appointed him as Chairman, Sindh Board of Technical Education , (hereinafter referred to as the Board) for a period of four years as provided under section 16(2) of the Sindh Board of Technical Education Ordinance, 1970.(hereinafter referred to the Ordinance). Respondent No,1 on 25-3-1997 issued the impugned notification whereby the Notification dated 10-3-1997 of re-employment of the petitioner was put in abeyance and the petitioner was stopped from performing the functions and discharging the duties of the post of Chairman of the Board. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid action of respondent No,1 was not only violative of the provision of the said Ordinance but also of the principle of natural justice in as much as no Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner nor any opportunity of personal hearing was given to him before stopping him from performing the functions and the duties of the aforesaid post, which virtually amounted to his removal/termination from the said post. It has further been submitted that the said appointment was for a fixed tenure of four years and according to the well-established principle, where appointment is made to a post having a fixed statutory tenure, then the incumbent is to be allowed to continue to hold the post for the period of statutory tenure in normal circumstances. The petitioner approached the relevant authority but no heed or attention was paid to his representation and not being able to seek the redressed of his grievance from any quarter, he had no option but to approach this Court by way of the above constitutional petition.
3. ' We have heard the arguments of Mr. Abrar Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Munir Ahmed, A.A.-G. And Mr. Abdul Muqtadir Khan, learned counsel for respondent No,2 and have also perused the material on record, relevant provisions of law relating to the circumstances of the case and the case-law cited by Mr. Abrar Hassan.
4. ' By virtue of the notification issued by the Services and General Administration Department, Government of Sindh, dated 10-3-1997, the petitioner a retired civil servant was re-employed on contract for a period of four years as Chairman of the Board. Appointment to the post of Chairman of the Board is governed by section 16 of the said Ordinance and subsection (2) thereof prescribes a fixed period of four years for appointment of Chairman on regular basis. The grievance of the petitioner is that his appointment was made in accordance with the provision of section 16(2) of the said Ordinance and legally he was entitled to hold the said post and perform the functions thereof for a period of four years and further that the subsequent notification/order of respondent No,1 keeping his appointment is abeyance till further orders and preventing him from performing the functions and discharging the duties of the said post is absolutely, illegal, ultra vires and ab initio void. Mr. Abrar Hassan, further submitted that impugned notification is also bad and defective on account of the fact that neither any show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to him before taking the aforesaid adverse action which practically resulted in his removal/termination from the said post. It has further been submitted that by virtue of the impugned Notification dated 10-3-1997, the petitioner had acquired a statutory right to continue to perform the functions/duties as Chairman of the Board for a period of four years in accordance with the provision of section 16(2) of the said Ordinance and the same could not be unilaterally taken away by respondent No,1 and further that in case of the unilateral action of respondent No,1 in depriving him of his statutory right in violation of the principle of natural justice, the petitioner is entitled to seek relief and get his grievance redressed by means of the above Constitutional petition.
5. We have considered the arguments advanced by Mr. Abrar Hassan and are not, at all, impressed by his contention that the Notification dated 10-3-1997 conferred or created statutory right or interest in favour of the petitioner to hold the post of Chairman of the Board for a period of four years. There is no dispute that in accordance with the provision of section 16(2) of the said Ordinance, the Chairman is to be appointed for a fixed tenure of four years as well as with the established principle that in the case of appointment to a post carrying or having a fixed statutory tenure, normally the incumbent of the post should be allowed to hold the said post and to discharge and perform the duties and the functions, thereof, for the fixed tenure unless it is found impossible and against the public interest to allow him to continue to hold the said post for the statutory tenure. However, the above provisions are applicable and are to be adhered to in case of an incumbent who has been appointed on a regular basis in accordance with the provision of section 16(2) of the said Ordinance during the course of his service and not to a civil servant who stood retired on attaining the age of superannuation and is inducted into service by way of reemployment on contract for appointment as Chairman of the Board. A contract employee on his appointment to a particular post does not acquire any vested or statutory right or interest in the post which he holds as contractual employee so as to enable him to seek and have re-course to the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court in case of violation of the terms of the contract or on his removal, termination and/or dismissal from the post to which he is appointed. The contention that such appointment of the petitioner was for a fixed period in view of the statutory provision, has no force as the appointment being on contract would be governed by the law of Master and Servant and not by the provisions of the Ordinance, specially of section 16(2) thereof, would have no application to such appointment and would not entitle him to bring an action for re-instatement to the said post. At the most he could seek damages, if any, which he might have sustained on account of wrongful and illegal removal or termination. For the above reliance has been placed on several cases, the first of which is the case of M.A. Rasheed v. Province of Punjab, 1987 MLD 153 wherein a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, held that where a retired civil servant was employed on contractual basis and his services were terminated on one month's notice in accordance with the terms of the contract, Constitutional jurisdiction could not be invoked for relief. In the case of Qurban Hussain v. Secretary, Services Department, reported in 1992 PLC (C.S.)
6. 76, a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, declined relief in the Constitutional jurisdiction to a re-employed retired Army Officer, who had been disallowed further extension after expiry of the period of contract. The Supreme Court in the case of University of the Punjab v. Sardar Ali, reported in 1992 SCMR 1093 observed while dealing with the case of termination of a lecturer on probation, whose service was terminated on a month's salary in lieu of notice coinciding with the expiry of the probation, observed that in the absence of statutory rules relief could not be accorded in Constitutional jurisdiction. In the case of Muhammad Umar Malik v. The Muslim Commercial Bank, reported in 1995 SCMR 453, the Supreme Court in a suit for re-instatement filed by an employee of the bank observed that where the rule of master and servant governed the relationship, re-instatement in service could not be ordered. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in C.Ps. Nos. D-2203, 2270, 2408, 2413 of 1996 and D-71, 118 and 381 of 1997 decided on 11-7-1997 and it will be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion from the aforesaid judgment dealing with contractual employees, which is as under:-- "Contractual employees, as inherent in the concept itself, are governed by the rule of master and servant and the cardinal principle in such cases is that no such servant can be forced upon an unwilling master. In cases of termination of such services, where the necessary pre-requisites are shown to exist, the Conventional remedy for an aggrieved employee would lie in a suit for damages or other permissible action in a Court of competent civil jurisdiction e.g. The Service Tribunal, as here, because all employees of the NHA, per statute, have been deemed to be civil servants for the purposes of Service Tribunals Act, 1973".
7. ' Mr. Abrar Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to us the case of Mrs. Anisa Rehman v.
8. M/s. Pakistan International Airline Corporation (hereinafter referred to as M/s. P.I.A.C.), reported in 1994 SCMR 2232, wherein the petitioner, an employee of M/s. P.I.A.C. Though held not to be governed by statutory rules of service, yet was allowed to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction on account of violation of the principle of natural justice. He contended that in view of the ratio of the case of Mrs. Anisa Rehman, the petitioner is entitled to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The contention of Mr. Abrar Hassan, is without any substance. In the cited case, petitioner Mrs.Anisa Rehman was allowed to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction as failure to comply with the principle of natural justice and in not providing an opportunity of hearing to her had resulted in violation of her vested right/interest to hold the post from which she was demoted to a lower post, which entitled her to have re-course to the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. In the present case, the petitioner being a contractual employee did not acquire any statutory right or interest to continue to hold the post in dispute for the statutory tenure/period and even violation of principle of natural justice in removing/terminating him would not give him the right to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction. It will be appropriate and of great advantage to refer to a portion of the judgment from the case of Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. M/s. PIAC, supra, on which Mr. Abrar Hassan has placed reliance, which supports the view expressed by us that the petitioner has no right to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction. The relevant portion is as under:- "The effect of the master and servant rule is that an employee of a corporation in the absence of violation of law or any statutory rule cannot press into service Constitutional jurisdiction or civil jurisdiction for seeking relief of re-instatement in service, his remedy for wrongful dismissal is to claim damages".
9. ' Apart from the above discussion, with regard to the right of the petitioner to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court to get any relief on being restrained or disallowed from performing function of the post in dispute, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner claims himself to be a civil servant and in view of Article 212 of the Constitution, he stands precluded and debarred from approaching this Court for redressed of his grievance and the proper forum to agitate or bring an action for his wrongful or illegal termination/removal, if any, is the Service Tribunal. In this context, it may be pointed out that Mr. Abrar Hassan, did not dispute that ordinarily the petitioner would have to approach the Service Tribunal for the redress of his grievance, but submitted that the issue or the controversy involved in the above constitution petition is of such a nature which is beyond the jurisdiction or scope of authority of the Service Tribunal. Elaborating his argument he submitted that under section 4 subsection (1) of the Service Tribunals Act, the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal to entertain a matter which involves the issues/controversy with regard to the fitness or otherwise of a civil servant to hold a particular post is ousted or barred and a civil servant cannot approach the Service Tribunal for adjudication thereof and in such matter the only option available to the aggrieved civil servant for seeking relief is to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. He further submitted that by the impugned notification, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed/terminated or his appointment was recalled, the fitness of the petitioner to hold the post in dispute has been questioned, which issue is beyond the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal thereby entitling him to approach this Court. The contention raised by Mr. Abrar Hassan is absolutely devoid of force. In the present case the issue or the controversy involved is removal/termination of the petitioner from the post of Chairman, Sindh Board of Technical Education to which he was appointed on contract after his retirement. The question of fitness or otherwise of the petitioner for holding the said post is not at all involved in as much as neither from perusal of the impugned notification nor from any other material on record it can be shown or established that the termination/removal of the petitioner from the said post was on account that he was found to be unfit or lacking in qualification, experience or expertise for discharging and performing the duties and functions of the said post. The removal/termination of the petitioner from the said post could be on account of several factors, one of them possibly being a change in the policy whereby respondent No,1, decided to appoint a serving civil servant on regular basis namely, Rashid Ahmed Khan, respondent No,2 and dispensing with the service of the petitioner, who had retired on attaining the age of superannuation. The issue or the controversy in dispute does not come within the scope of determining fitness or otherwise of the petitioner for holding the post as Chairman of the Board, but is relative to the terms and conditions of the petitioner's service.
10. On this ground also the petition has no force.
11. ' Upon the above discussion, we are absolutely satisfied that the aforesaid petition besides not being maintainable in accordance with the provision of law is without any force and substance and does not merit consideration.
12. ' By a short order dated 2-10-1997 we had dismissed this petition for reasons to be recorded later.
13. The above are the reasons for its dismissal.