Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN NIAZI VS Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL, SADIQ PUBLIC SCHOOL, BAHAWALPURHonorable Justice Mian Saqib NisarChaudhry Parmoon Bashir,Sardar Riaz Ahmad Dahar
2003 P L C (C
2003 P L C (C.S.) 1157
[Lahore High Court]
Before Mian Saqib Nisar, J
MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN NIAZI
Versus
THE PRINCIPAL, SADIQ PUBLIC SCHOOL, BAHAWALPUR
Writ Petition No, 5602 of 2001, heard on 16th July, 2002.
(a) Constitutional of Pakistan (1973)---
----Art.199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Constitutional petition against a Public School---Respondent being a 'person' Constitutional petition was competent against him.
Muhammad Zubair Ikram v. Aitchisan College Lahore through Principal PLD 2000 Lah. 489 fol.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--
----Art.199---Constitutional petition---No statutory rules of employment applicable to the Corporation/respondent---Question whether Constitutional petition could be enforced on the basis of wrongful termination of an employee against respondent/statutory Corporation---Employment of employees of statutory Corporation being not regulated by statutory rules any wrongful termination would not be subject of Constitutional jurisdiction but an aggrieved employee could agitate the matter in Civil Court.
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 an another 1999 SCMR 2381 ref.
PLD 2000 Lah. 489 distinguished.
Chaudhry Parmoon Bashir for Petitioner.
Sardar Riaz Ahmad Dahar for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 16th July, 2002.
JUDGMENT
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.
S.M.B./M-1899/L Petition dismissed.