' This judgment shall deal with and decide Writ Petitions Nos.3299 of 2001, 2672 of 2001 and Writ Petition No,3300 of 2001 for being on identical questions of law and facts.
2. Since the case was thoroughly and fully argued by the learned counsel for the parties, therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of as admitted/Pacca' case.
3. Under Management Trainee Scheme of Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited i,e, the Company, the petitioners were appointed as Management Trainees under a contract of two years. No term or guarantee was offered to the petitioners by the respondents-company to retain or absorb any of the Trainees in its regular service. As such, on expiry of the contract period, petitioners were so intimated and their service was terminated, petitioners thereupon filed writ petitions in this Court.
These writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in limine. Petitioners challenged the said judgment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. By order dated 1-4- 1998, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan refused leave to petitioners with following observations: "Leave is refused with the observation that in case the respondent-company decides to induct new trainees, the petitioners will be at liberty to apply for the post and the respondent-company will give due consideration to the fact that the petitioners have already successfully completed the training."
4. On 3-4-2000, the respondent-company through advertisement in the newspaper, invited applications for recruitment/selection for various posts. On 8-4-2000, a corrigendum to the abovesaid advertisement was published in the press by the respondent-company providing that only the persons holding 1st Division throughout their academic career (starting from Matric) were qualified for the posts. Though the petitioners were not such 1st divisionary, they nevertheless sent their applications to the respondent-company. Since petitioners did not receive any response thereto, therefore, they challenged the inaction of the respondent-company through the present writ petitions to seek execution and enforcement of order dated 1-4-1998 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan with the prayer to direct respondent-company to "duly consider the petitioners in the true meaning and spirit of the Supreme Court's order without any hurdle or conditionality attached to such due consideration".
5. Respondent-company was directed to file report and parawise comments, wherein numbers of objections were raised to the merits as well as maintainability of the writ petitions. It was contended that the respondent-company, being a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and in particular to enforce contract between the parties. Further that for the purposes of selection to a posi, employer is the ultimate judge of fitness and suitability. On merits, it was pleaded that some of the petitioners had no locus standi to file the petition as they never made any applications to the respondent-company and those who made the applications lacked the requisite qualifications prescribed by the company qua the 1st division in academic career and the requisite experience. As such, petitioners' case, after due consideration during short listing, was not included in the list of eligible candidates to be invited for written test and interviews like hundreds of other candidates. It was also pleaded that "the Management Trainees fulfilling the merit criteria were included in the said short list and after requisite tests and interviews were duly recruited in the company". Institution of the writ petitions with an unexplained delay of over one year was also agitated by the respondent-company.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that it was only to oust the petitioners and to flout the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that the respondent-company raised the academic and experience qualifications to 1st divisions and longer period job experience, hence the whole exercise conducted by the respondent-company was mala fide and was liable to be struck out. It was further contended that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 1-4-1998 was not enforced and terms thereof were not complied with by the respondent-company as petitioners had been excluded from "due consideration" and the term "due consideration" (as prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan) related only to one fact that "the petitioners have already successfully completed the training", but this fact was totally disregarded by the respondents-company making recruitments and providing the higher qualifications, although case of the petitioners in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Coln, required priority in consideration without placing further conditionality's or limits of qualifications etc.
7. Contrarily, learned counsel for the respondent-company supported the parawise comments and reinforced the same by stating that respondent-company had received 1333 applications from the "Management Trainees" for 14 available and advertised posts. All these applications including those of the petitioners were duly and thoroughly scrutinized and considered and only 13 candidates were found eligible to be invited for tests and interviews. Out of these 13 eligibles, only 6 candidates met the requisite criteria and were selected by the respondent-company. In answer to this, darned counsel for the petitioners referred to para. 23 of the parawise comments to state that respondent- company itself admits that "the training experience of the petitioners could have been given due consideration after fulfilling the merit criteria". He stated that this admission shows that the case of the petitioners was not duly considered.
8. I have attended to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record. The admitted facts emerging from the entire controversy between the parties are that on completion of 2 years' contract of petitioners and others as Management Trainees, their service period expired and they were so intimated by the respondent-company. The petitioners and their other colleagues challenged termination of their service and their non-recruitment in regular service of the company through, filing a number of writ petitions. All these writ petitions were dismissed by this Court, whereupon, they challenged the judgment of this Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. In Writ Petition No,27701-1997, this Court observed as under:-- "The agreement itself does not provide that after completion of training the petitioners will be entitled to any job in the company." (1999 M LD 3446).
9. While deciding the petition for leave to appeal against the above said order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan refused the leave and made the following observations: "We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The crucial question arising for determination is whether the appellants had any rights, 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 specially 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."
' It was also held that: "Lastly, we may observe that to enforce a contract, the remedy does not lie under the Constitutional provisions because it is settled law that no contract can be enforced through a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The principle of promissory estoppel is also not attracted because no right vests in the appellants to be absorbed in the service of the Company after completion of successful training." (1998 SCM R 1549).
10. However, while dismissing leave petition of the petitioners, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan was pleased to add a rider through following observation: "Leave is refused with the observation that in case the respondent-company decides to induct new trainees, the petitioners will be at liberty to apply for the post and the respondent-company will give due consideration to the fact that the petitioners have already successfully completed the training."
11. The entire case of the petitioners has thus been built on the basis of above observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Learned counsel for the petitioners has emphatically stated that the respondent-company had failed to obey the abovesaid direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and to give "due consideration to the fact that the petitioners have already successfully completed the training". The thrust of his arguments was that respondent-company raised the selection criteria by prescribing academic qualification as 1st divisions throughout since Matric and additional number of years as job experience, only with the objective to flout the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and to oust the petitioners from consideration. He further argued that respondent-company, in view of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, had no power to prescribe higher qualifications and the only qualification on which the petitioners were entitled to selection was their successful completion of training as Management Trainees to be entitled to "due consideration" in terms of the order dated 1-4-1998 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
12. I am afraid, this contention has no merit. Through this argument, learned counsel for tht.
Petitioners seeks from this Court to place an embargo on the respondent-company to prescribe other qualifications and criteria for selection of posts except those suitable to the petitioners and restrain it from prescribing criteria and qualifications suitable for respondent-company's professional and business needs, job requirements and managerial exigencies. This Court has no jurisdiction to judicially so direct and to review the selection and suitability process undertaken by a company in the interest of its business. This goes without saying that powers of such judicial review will of course be available to this Court in case of mala fides of an agency or authority, if falling within the scope of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
13. Without going into the preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the present petitions against the respondent-company (a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984), suffice to observe that the petitioners have neither particularized the instances of mala fides nor have they been able to prove or show that the selection criteria and qualifications were raised by the respondent company only to exclude the petitioners from consideration for the said posts and to flout the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. .Petitioners have not denied that for 14 posts, respondent-company received 1333 applications from Management Trainees or Ex-Management Trainees. And that these applications were scrutinized and only 13 candidates met the prescribed qualifications and criteria to become eligible candidates for interview and tests. As such, it is an admitted fact that 1320 applicants were rejected as ineligible for failing to meet the selection criteria. Out of 13 eligible candidates, only 6 were selected, meaning thereby that 1327 applicants including 7 eligible candidates were rejected by the respondent- company. The applicants so rejected included the petitioners as well. It has not been shown by the learned counsel for the petitioners as to how petitioners have been discriminated against upon rejection alongwith above said 1327 applicants including 7 eligible candidates. It has also not been proved by the petitioners that the process of scrutiny of their applications alongwith others was selective or uneven or coloured. In fact, petitioners have in their petitions and through arguments of their learned counsel admitted that they failed to meet the academic qualifications and experience criteria prescribed in the advertisement by the respondent-company. Petitioners thus failing to meet the requisite criteria for consideration for the said posts, raised the argument that no additional qualification criteria could be prescribed by the respondent-company for the petitioners except "the successful completion of training" as Management Trainees per the Supreme Court judgment.
14. I am afraid, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan did not restrain the respondent-company to prescribe other suitable and better qualifications in addition to the condition of successful completion of training by the applying Management Trainees. In fact, petitioners seek their selection only on the sole basis of their completion of training. Completion of training was only one of the factors to be considered alongwith other relevant facts, factors and qualifications in comparison to other applicants for the purposes of eligibility and ultimate selection. This of course was not the sole criterion to be taken into account by the respondent-company while scrutinizing and considering the applications of the petitioners whose case did not demand any special, favorable or preferential treatment in isolation to other applicants.
' Bare reading of order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reveals that the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed "due consideration" to the effect of successful completion of training without prescribing the same as the only condition for selection qua the petitioners.
15. Even otherwise, the term "due consideration" interpreted in its perspective can only mean proper, serious, reasonable, fair and honest application of mind and evaluation of comparative rights and records of eligible candidates. The word "due consideration" cannot be taken to mean that other prescribed qualifications should not at all be taken into account in the case of the petitioners. This will obviously deprive an employer of the age old and sacrosanct right and privilege to prescribed qualifications and criteria for selection of suitable persons for employment in consonance with the business, professional, trade, manage mental, administrative and other requirements of the establishment/calling.
16. Word 'consideration has been discussed and referred to in Volume 1 of Second Edition of "Words and Phrases Legally Defined" by John B. Saunders, Butter worth's, 1969 Edition as under:-- "A 'considerations', I apprehend, is something which one takes into account as a factor in arriving at a decision." (Hanks v. Minister of Housing and Local Government (1963) I All ER 47).
The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 7th Edition at page 201 gives the meaning of the word 'consider' as "contemplate mentally; weigh I merits of (course of action, claim candidate, etc.)".
Chamber 21st ' Century Dictionary at page 292 defines 'consideration as "a fact, circumstance, etc. To be taken into account".
"Due consideration" has been defined by Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition of 1979 at page 448 as under:-- "To give such weight or significance to a particular factor as under the circumstances it seems to merit, and this involves discretion.. (United States ex rel. Maine Potato Growers and ' Shippers Association v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 66 App. D.C. 398, 88 F.2d 780, 783.)"
17. The above given meanings and definitions of the term 'consideration and "due consideration", in concise, are that all factors and circumstances meriting attention should be given due weight and significance in the given situation and cases by accounting for each and every aspect of the matter including the prescribed factor requiring appreciation subject, of course, to other factors, criteria and qualifications needing thoughtful assessment. I, therefore, believe that absence of the requisite higher qualification and criteria in petitioners could not have won their "successful completion of training as Management Trainees", the advertised posts. Petitioners' argument that no other conditionality or qualification in the case of the petitioners could be prescribed by the respondent-company, in fact, amounts to giving undue meaning to the word "due consideration", which cannot be misinterpreted as "due priority" over all other candidates. This would have meant a wide scale and large discrimination against other applicants and eligible candidates. In view thereof, these petitioners are dismissed with costs.