JUDGMENT SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.- Through this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction for the pay of the post of Principal of the Pakistan Embassy School at Jeddah, It arises out of the following circumstances.
2. On the requisition of the Pakistan Embassy at Riyadh, Ministry of Education invited applications for the post of teachers in the Pakistan Embassy School, Jeddah. The petitioner was selected as teacher at the monthly consolidated salary of 2,500/- Saudi Riyals i.e.f. 1.9.1987. He was then working in the Government of the Punjab, Education Department and was relieved by his employer to join the new assignment. On 9.1.1991, Mr. Mahboob Ali Sheikh, the Principal of the aforesaid School was relieved of his duties, he relinquished the charge of the office on 13.1.1991 and handed it over to the petitioner as directed in the order dated 9.1.1991 of the Consulate General, Jeddah. He continued in this capacity till 31.5.1995 when he was relieved.
3. Meanwhile on 12.9.1991 the petitioner made a representation to the Ambassador, the Chairman of the Pakistan Embassy School, Jeddah for the grant of regular pay scale of the Principal i.e.f. 13.1.1991, the date of assumption of the duties of the Principal. He claims to have made similar applications, In his letter dated 12.5.1.997 addressed to Ministry of Foreign Affairs by the Consulate General the request of the petitioner was declined.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Sarwar Ali Khan v. Chief Secretary to Government of Sindh and another (PLD 1994 S.C. 233), Imdad Ali Khan v. Pakistan and another (PLD 1986 S.C. 349), Abdul Latif v. Chairman, Wapda and 3 others (1998 SCM R 2614) and Federation of Pakistan v. Shahzada Shahpur Jan and 2 others (1986 SCM R 991) to contend that since the petitioner had performed the duties of the post of the Principal from 13.1.1991, he was entitled to the pay and other emolument of the said post and a direction is, accordingly, prayed for.
5. The learned Deputy Attorney General, on the other hand, submits that services of the petitioner were not borrowed by the Federal Government. It was a case of direct appointment. He maintains that the said School is an autonomous body being run by the Board of Governors, the Chairman which is the Ambassador of Pakistan which is being run on self-finance basis and except that the Federal Government gives grant to the said School, its affairs are not .. Controlled by the Federal Government. Another contention,, being raised is that the employer of the petitioner i.e. School has not even been impleaded to this writ petition, It is maintained that a direction in the nature of mandamus is sought through this petition and since the employer of. The petitioner and even the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the said School is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, no writ could be issued. According to him, appointment of the petitioner was contractual in nature, he was not a Civil Servant and therefore, the rule inundated in the judgments being relied upon by the petitioner is not attracted because these were based on a specific provision pf law.
The learned Deputy Attorney General also contended that the petitioner was paid Rs.2000 per month as officiating allowance at his on request.
6. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been considered. Neither the order of appointment of the petitioner showing the terms and conditions of his employment nor the relevant rules with which his service was governed have been placed on the record. However, from the perusal of the record it appears that the following rule was relied upon while the representation of the petitioner was processed by the Pakistan Embassy School at jeddah:- "A Staff member during the period that he officiates in a particular vacant post is eligible to draw monthly officiating allowance equivalent to 50% of-the difference between the minimum pay of the scale of $ higher post and the basic pay being drawn by the incumbent. The benefits shall become available only when a person holds charge for one month or more period."
7. The judgments being relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner were rendered in the cases of Civil Servants on the basis of Section 1 7 of the Civil Servant Act, 1973 and a similar provision in the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973. The rules with which the service of the petitioner were governed have not even been placed on the record. Therefore, further examination of this question is not considered necessary for the reason to follow.
8. According to the stand taken by the Ministry of Education that the said School was under Administrative Control of Embassy of Pakistan and the Ministry of Education had only a coordinating role. Even, if the Ministry of Education had some role to play in the selection of teachers for the said School the fact remains that the employer of the petitioner was the Pakistan Embassy School at Jeddah. The Pakistan Ambassador in Saudi Arabia is the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the School. However, not only the employer of the petitioner i.e. The Pakistan Embassy School at Jeddah but also the Chairman of the Board of Governors is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, a writ in the nature of mandamus cannot be issued. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.