There is no need to narrate the brief history of the case here as it has been elaborated is in detail in paras. Nos. 2, 6 and 7 of the impugned judgment, recorded, on 19-2-1999 by Mr. Azar Khan Nasim, Additional District Judge (I) Peshawar.
2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents (Malik Naz, Principal University Public School, Peshawar was transferred by the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of the power vested in him under section 23, of the University of Peshawar Service Statutes, 1977, therefore, he had to comply with the said order and that he could not go to a civil Court and get a stay order. He stated that the relationship between the petitioner University and the respondent was that of "Master and Servant" and, therefore, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit; that assumption of jurisdiction by the Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar as well as the lower Appellate Court was illegal and without legal authority and, thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
3. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on case Habib Bank Limited and others v.
Syed Ziaul Hassan Kazmi, decided by an Humble Division Bench of the August, Supreme Court of Pakistan comprising of his Lordship Mr. Justice Ajmal Mian and Mr. Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, reported as 1998 SCM R 60. It was held therein as under:-- "(b) Master and Servant.--....Wrongful dismissal Remedy Employee of a Corporation in absence of violation of law or any statutory rules cannot press into service Constitutional jurisdiction or civil jurisdiction for seeking relief of reinstatement in service his remedy for wrongful dismissal is to claim damages."
4. He also placed reliance on another case titled United Bank Limited and others v. Ahsan Akhtar and others, decided by an Humble Division Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan comprising of his Lordship Mr. Justice Ajmal Mian and Mr. Justice Fazal Ilahi Khan and reported as 1998 SCM R 68 wherein it was held:--
(c) Master and Servant:-- __Wrongful termination of Service of employee of a Corporation Remedy...... Relation between a Corporation and its employee was that of master and servant and remedy for wrongful termination of service of an employee was a suit f9r damages and not relief for reinstatement."
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit and, therefore, it could not grant an interim stay order. According to him the lower Appellate Court has also ignored this fact and has, thus, committed material irregularity illegality in granting temporary relief, was prayed by the respondent. According to him the orders of the lower forums are without jurisdiction and law full authority and accordingly liable to be set aside.
6. A perusal of the impugned order/judgment recorded by the Additional District Judge on 19-2- 1999, would show that the respondent was appointed as Principal of the University Public School, Peshawar and after completion of his probation period of one year he was confirmed on 12-9-1993 and is working as Principal since then.
7. It may be noted that even earlier the respondent Principal was transferred to Islamic College, Peshawar Vide Order, dated 23-8-1994 but the Chancellor/Governor of N.-W.F.P., Vide: his order, dated 8-8-1995, annulled the proceedings of the Inquiry Committee and re-instated the respondent as Principal of a University Public School, Peshawar. The said order of the Chancellor was allegedly challenged in the High Court as well as in the Supreme Court of Pakistan but the same was maintained.
8. Another Committee was constituted in 1997 to look into the affairs of the School and the said Committee in its report praised the overall performance of the respondent/Principal but recommended that he be transferred. The Vice-Chancellor again transferred him as Director of English Language Centre.
9. The respondent's case, it appears, is that he was never transferred from Islamia College to University Public School but was appointed as Principal of the University Public School on permanent basis and that the Vice-Chancellor, in the circumstr- -, had no jurisdiction to transfer him under section 23 of the University of Peshawar Service Statutes, 1997; that it was for this reason that respondent had approached the Civil Court for the redress of his grievance.
10.It has probably escaped the notice of the learned counsel' for the petitioner that it was held in case titled The Principal, Cadet College, Kohat and another v. Muhammad Shoab Qureshi, by a Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, comprising of His Lordship Mr. Justice Aslam Riaz Hussain, Mr. Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mr. Justice Nasim Hasan Shah and reported as PLD 1994 Supreme Court 170, as under:-- "(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)...Article 199...Writ Jurisdiction Employee of Organization instituted under Statute... Termination of Service...Conditions of service of the employee of statutory rules any action prejudicial taken against such employee in derogation or in violation of said Rules can be set aside by writ petition...Terms and conditions of employee, if not governed by statutory rules but only by regulation, instructions or directions which institution or body in which he was employed has issued for its internal use, any violation thereof, would not, normally be enforced, through writ petition (Civil Service)."
11.It is, therefore, clear that an employee of the organization which is constituted under the Statute would have the right to of to the Court if any action is taken against him in derogation or in violation of the said rules.
12. The Lower Courts are, for the time being, of the view that the respondent has a prima facie case and, therefore, both the Courts below have granted him interim relief. Without going into the merits of the case at this stage an in the circumstances detailed above, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders which are neither arbitrary nor perverse. The petitioners shall be at liberty to raise the question of jurisdiction before the trial Court and shall be given every opportunity to contest the case and produce evidence before the trial Court and the trial Court shall then decide the case on merits.
14. This revision petition is without any substance and is accordingly dismissed in limine.