' Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner seeks setting aside of his impugned termination order dated 1-7-2002 by declaring the same as mala fide, illegal, unlawful, without jurisdiction, unfair, unjust and against the law and prays for reinstatement of the petitioner. It is further prayed that appointment and actions of respondent No,3 be declared as illegal and improper and unlawful.
2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as Project Manager on 31-5-2000 and the post of respondent No,2 is a body corporate established by the Government for the purpose of administration, promotion, development and use of information technology. The petitioner claims that he was appointed on contract basis for a period of one year, w,e,f, 1-6-2000, and the probation period was for a period of three months. The petitioner completed the probationary period. The contract of the petitioner was extended on 15-5-20Q1 till further orders on existing terms and conditions. Respondent No,3, started packing PITB with people from his own private firm. On 27-12-2001 respondent No,3 informed the petitioner that his services had been terminated but later on the termination order was withdrawn. Then respondent No,4 on the instructions of respondent No,3, issued letter of termination of services of the petitioner on 1-7-2002; which is impugned in this petition on the ground that termination order has been passed on the factual controversies which require holding of inquiry and without holding of inquiry, the allegations have been considered proved which is stigma on the future career of the petitioner and the termination order is against the principle of audi alteram partem. He relies upon Mrs. Anisa Rehman's case reported in (1994 SCMR 2232) that if the services of an employee are not regulated by statutory rules and his services are affected by an order passed without affording opportunity of hearing, writ petition is maintainable. It is further contended that the order on the face of it is illegal and unlawful and is liable to be struck down.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has raised the preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that statutory rules did not govern the services of the petitioner, hence, writ petition is not maintainable and the questions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be entertained in writ petition. He relies upon Arshad Ahmad Khan v. Chairman, Bank of Punjab and others (2001 PLC (C.S.) 207), Habib Bank Limited and others v.
Syed Zia-ul-Hassan Kazmi (1998 SCMR 60), Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and others v. Muhammad Zaman Khan and others (1997 SCMR 1508).
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents attached with this petition and also the case-law cited by both the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Mrs. Anisa Rehman's case reported in (1994 SCMR 2232) to contend though the services of Mrs. Anisa Rehman petitioner were not regulated by statutory rules but she was demoted from service without affording opportunity of hearing yet in spite of the fact that her relationship with the respondent was that of master and servant, it was held that writ petition was maintainable. But, subsequently, the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, in a case reported in (1998 SCMR 60) titled as Habib Bank Limited and others v. Syed Ziaul-Hassan Kazmi, has held that the services of respondent Syed Zia-ulHassan Kazmi were not regulated by statutory rules, hence, relationship of the bank with the respondent was that of master and servant and the High Court was not justified in allowing the interim relief to respondent before the decision of the question of maintainability of the writ petition. For ready reference relevant portion is reproduced as under: "However, at the same time it was observed in the above report that 'The effect of the application 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 reinstatement in service, his remedy for wrongful dismissal is to claim damages'. In other words, the well-settled proposition of law that in the case of an employee of a Corporation the relationship is that of master and servant."
' It has been further held that:- "7. The ratio of the judgment in the case of Mrs. Anisa Rehman (supra) is that a Corporation cannot demote its employee to a lower grade without hearing him/her before passing demotion order. It has not dealt with the question of termination of services or suspension order."
5. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan has discussed the judgment of Mrs. Anisa Rehman (supra) that it was not regarding termination of services of an employee, hence, it was held that case of demotion is on different footings than the case of termination of an employee, while, case in hand is also regarding termination of employee of Corporation who is not governed by the dictum laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Habib Bank Limited and others v.
Syed Zia-ul-Hassan Kazmi (1998 SCMR 60).
6. It is also now well-settled that contractual obligations cannot be enforced through writ jurisdiction as is reported in The Chandpur Mills Ltd. v. The District Magistrate, Tippera and (2) The Province of East Pakistan (PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 267), Messrs Momin Motor Company v. The Regional Transport Authority, Dacca and others (PLD 1962 SC 108), Dr. Dhanwani Vaswa ni v. State and another (1994 SCMR 207), Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and others v. Mst. Hamida Begum (1997 SCMR 1089).
7. For the above-said reasons and the case-law cited above, this writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed.