' MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.---The petitioners in the three writ petitions i,e, Writ Petitions No,309 of 1997, 7 of 1998 and 367 of 1998 were selected as Managment Trainees in the Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. In the Management Training Scheme for a fixed period of 2 years, not extendable under any circumstances and not entitled for regular job service in the Company, as per Appointment Management Training Contract. However, during the training period they were led entitled to receive fix stipend of Rs,6000 per month. After the expiration of the said period of training contract of 2 years each of them was served with a letter informing them about the expiration of the training period. It is this information/letter which was termed by the petitioner (s) as order of termination and which they have challenged through the instant writ petition(s).
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner(s) .Contended that before the termination order no show- cause notice was served upon them and they were condemned unheard.
3. In Writ Petition No,367 of 1998 petitioner Saleem Ahmad Khan has presented his case himself and submitted that the time which they have spent in receiving the training has gone waste as after completion of training they were not provided any service. He has further submitted that there are number of posts which fall vacant from time to time and instead of their selection/appointment the others are appointed including inexperienced and without undergoing the process of training.
In this respect he has made a reference to the latest advertisement published in the Newspaper inviting applications for filling of the vacancies with some strict conditions e.g. With higher academic qualifications of possessing 1st Division throughout which was not the condition at the time of their entering into the training/course.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the petitioner(s) are having no vested right as much as to consider the same in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction by this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. The petitioner(s) were selected for a fixed period to undergo certain training and have not been appointed as employees of the respondent company. He has further submitted that their this selection/appointment on the basis of contract the period of which has already expired, cannot be enforced through a writ petition. His last submission was that neither the respondent is a Statutory Organization nor has any statutory rules. In this respect he has placed reliance on a judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Azam Suhail and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources Islamabad and others (C.A. No, 182 of 1998) whereby in similar situation in civil petition, leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No,27701 of 1977 was refused.
5. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the petitioner in Writ Petition No,367 of 1998 and also that of the respondents and perusal of the record it is evident that the petitioner(s) were selected as Management Trainees for a fixed period of 2 years with a condition that they would not be entitled for regular job/service in the company. The impugned order which is termed by the petitioner(s) as termination order is not a termination order rather an information given to the petitioner (s) about the expiration of the contract period of their training.
6. The grievance of the petitioner in Writ Petition No,367 of 1998 is also misplaced. His contention has also got no force. If the respondent company has advertised the, posts prescribing certain qualifications, the company has done nothing wrong rather it has acted in accordance with well- settled principle to fill the vacancies through an open competition by inviting applications from all the deserving candidates affording opportunities to each one of them and the petitioner has not been debarred if otherwise qualified, to compete with others for the selection/appointment.
' In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent whereby it was held: "We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The crucial question arising for determination is whether the appellants had any right which could be enforced in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court conferred on it by virtue of Article 199 of the Constitution. The answer to this question is in the negative inasmuch as the perusal of the appointment letter clearly shows that it was for a fixed period and it was specifically provided therein that the completion of the training scheme by the trainees like the appellants, would not confer upon them any right to be absorbed in the company."
' The writ petitions are liable to dismissal and we accordingly dismiss all the three writ petitions.