' The petitioner was appointed as Officer Incharge of Military Wing, Sadiq Public School on 26-8- 1995. Subsequently, on 10-9-2001, an Adjutant was employed on the basis of extra regimental employment and a Captain was posted against the said post, thus, adjudging the petitioner as surplus and his services were terminated vide impugned order dated 17-9-2001, which has been impugned through the instant writ petition.
2. This petition was admitted to regular hearing and the respondent has filed his written statement.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon Muhammad Zubair Ikram v. Aitchisan College, Lahore through its Principal (PLD 2000 Lahore 489), contends that writ petition against the respondent is competent not only that the respondent has been declared to be a 'person' within the purview of Article 199 of the Constitution, but also against the wrongful termination of its employees.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. As far as the competency of the petition considering the respondent as a 'person' is concerned, this has been settled in the aforesaid judgment, which, though pertains to Aitchisan College, Lahore, but is para materia to the present institution. This judgment has also been affirmed by the Supreme Court. However, the question involved in the present petition is altogether different and that is, whether the petitioner can enforce writ on the basis of wrongful termination, when there are no statutory rules of employment of the respondent. Learned counsel has again derived support from the aforesaid judgment (PLD 2000 Lah. 489). I am afraid, as against the aforesaid judgment, there are number of judgments from the Supreme Court jurisdiction, such as The Principal, Cadet College, Kohat v. Muhammad Shoaib Qureshi (PLD 1984 SC 170), University of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others v. Ch. Sardar Ali (1992 SCMR 1093) and Ijaz Hussain Suleri v. The Registrar and another (1999 SCMR 2381), wherein it is held that in case a statutory Corporation does not regulate employment of its employees by statutory rules, any wrongful termination would not be subject of writ jurisdiction, but an aggrieved employee can agitate the matter in Civil Court.
' In the light of the above and following the aforesaid dictums of the Supreme Court, it is held that the employment of the petitioner, as per admitted position, was not regulated by any statutory rules. Resultantly, this petition is not competent and is dismissed.