' SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.---Vide order dated 1-3-1995 the petitioner was appointed as a driver on ad hoc basis for a period of six months in the respondent-Board. In the meeting of the respondent- Board held on 24-8-1995 his services were regularized and an office order was issued on 28-8- 1995. According to the terms and conditions of the order dated 28-8-1995 the services of the petitioners were liable to be terminated without assigning any reason after giving notice as required under the Regulations of the Board. Vide order dated 21-1-2000, the services of the petitioner were terminated and vide order dated 2-1-2000, he was reverted as a sweeper, the post against which be was originally appointed. The petitioner filed a departmental appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 29-11-2000.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 21-1-2000 was passed on the basis of the order of this Court directing dismissal of Writ Petition No,6527 of 1996. He maintains that the petitioner was not party to the aforesaid writ petition and that while dismissing the said writ petition, this Court had noted that the petitioner in the said case was ad hoc appointee whose ad hoc tenure had not been extended. He thus, maintains that the decision in said case could not possibly be the basis to terminate the services of the petitioner as a Driver. It is next contended that the impugned order has been passed without any notice to or hearing of the petitioner and, is, therefore, non-est.
3. Dr. Qazi Mohy-ud-Din, Advocate, who represents the respondent-Board, submits that even with the regularization of the services of the petitioner, the letter of appointment dated 28-8-1995 provided for termination of the services of the petitioner without assigning any reason. It is next contended that the employment in the Board is regulated by the rule of Master and Servant and since there is no statutory protection to the employees of the Board, the order directing termination of the services of the petitioner Could not be interfered with. He referred to Regulation No,11 of Service Regulations of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad according to which every person in the employment of the said Board holds the office, during the pleasure of the Board.
4. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been considered. I have also perused the judgment in Writ Petition No,6527 of 1996 which is the basis of the impugned order dated 21-1-2000. Not only the petitioner was not party to the said case but also that the facts of the said case were clearly distinguishable inasmuch as that the ad hoc appointment in that case was not regularized or further, extended at the time of termination of the services of the petitioner in the said case. Situation in this case is entirely different as in the meeting of the Board held on 24-8- 1995 the services of the petitioner were regularized and the formal order issued. Even if services of the petitioner were liable to be terminated within the terms of the order dated 28-8-1995 the principles of natural justice were required to be observed. I may also add that the power of the Board to terminate the services of an employee without assigning any reason could not possibly be equated as "without any reason". To assign a reason is one thing and to have a reason is entirely a different thing. The Board cannot be heard to say that services of the petitioner could be terminated without any reason. The misleading and cumbersome expressions i,e, "pleasure" in Regulation No,11 or "without assigning any reason" in the letter dated 28-8-1995 cannot be stretched to empower the Board to act in the matter in an arbitrary manner. In case of public employment, the employer is required to act justly and fairly to obey the command of Article 4 of the Constitution, even though there may not be any statutory rules protecting the services of an employee of a statutory body. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the respondent- Board relied on Abdul Jabbar Memon and others (1996 SCM R 1349) to contend that no public appointment could be made without following the prescribed procedure i,e, public notice through Press inviting applications and process of selection undertaking by the Selection Committee.
According to him the petitioner was able to obtain appointment as a Driver contrary to the rules and in the like manner had been able to get regularization of his services. Therefore, while terminating the services of the petitioner, only a wrong was rectified warranting exercise of judicial restraint. The impugned order does not show that this was the reason for terminating the services of the petitioner as Driver.
5. As far as the principle of Master and Servant is concerned, it may be observed that as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miss Anisa Rehman v. P.I.A.C. And another (1994 SCM R 2232) the principle of natural justice continues to apply even in a case in which the master-servant rule applies. In this case the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that although the Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 adopted by the Board are not statutory yet Regulations of the Board are statutory, the action having been taken under the Regulations it was justiciable and the principle of Master and Servants did not apply. The issue is not required to be decided in this case in view of my observations made above that the petitioner was entitled to notice and an opportunity of hearing before any adverse action was taken against him.
6. For what has been stated above, this writ petitions is allowed. The impugned order dated 21-1- 2000 and the appellate order dated 29-11-2000 are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It is clarified that the respondent will be free to take action in the matter in accordance with law.