Fro ae om 20 Mar. 20:5 03:55 P SUPREME COURT OF FmMUSTAN (appellate Jurisdiction) PRESENT: Mr. fustige Gulzar Ahmed i Mr, Justice Qazi Paez Tea | Mp. Justice Hjaz UI Abaan ©.P.N9.2792/2018 eer tan Khan v, Federation of Pakistan thr, Secretary to MMorgovernment vs Pakistan M/o Information Technolory and ‘Telecom Division, Telamabad & others) C.P.No.9826 of 2038 Fare Siorctary, Capital Administration and Developaient Division, {tlamebad & another ¥, Waseem Riaz & others) C.P.No,3527 of 2018 ee ere Cocital Administration and Development Division, Irlarebed & aivetner ¥ Robie Bibi & others) GyP.No.3528 of 201 ike Secretary, Copilal Admin Islamabad & another ©. Fahad Mia ‘C-P.No.0529 of 2018 [the Secretary, Capital Administration and Development Division, {slarabed & others v. ajma Tahir Chughtai & another) .Mo.9590 0f 2018 GAs Sceretary, Capital Administration und Development Divisi Islamabad 8 another v. Syed Ali Raza Zaidi) C.P.No.3531 of 2018 eeeeea, Capital Administration and Development Division, Ghsroabed @ another Mat. Kiran Furoo) Gp.No,3532 of 2018 GE Seoretary, Capital Administration and Development Division, {slotaabad & thers v. Abu Baler Kian & others} Plo. 9899 of 2018 | Fie Secretary, Capital Administration and Development Division, Isisroabad & another ¥- Saran Bid) C.b.N9.9534 of 2018 fae Scurctary, Copitel Adminietration and Development Division, Istamabed f another +. Moazam Shahzad} GP.No.3835 of 2018 Gike Seeretary, Copltel Administration and Development Divine {slamabed & another v, Uzma Bib & others) CP No.3836 of 2018 She Secretary, Capital Administration and Development Division, {tlurmabad & others ¥. Tahira Naseem & others), Ging.a745/2018 {Slice of Chict Commissioner, Islamuhad Capital Territory Islamabad thr. Chief Commissioner, Islasinbed v. Muhammad Faroog & others) ‘ro.285/2039 y {Feteradon of Pakistan thr, Director General, National instivute of Science 6 Technology, Islamabad ¥. Mukarnmad Arif & others) ‘GMA No.8167 of 2018 in C.P.i1 of 2018 fhe Secretary, Capial Administration and Development Division, {llamobad & dhcther v. Mat Rashida Yamin & other ATTESTED i wration and. Development Division, ‘khan & others),FRY NO. 28 Mar. 2019 0: cote item 2 CMA.No.8168 of 2018 in C.P.NIL of 2018 fine Secretary, Capital Administration and Development Division Jelamabad & another v, Mehnaz Rahat & others) C.P,No,3879/2018 rs y. Federation of Pakistan thr. Secretary, y (imran Ahmed & other devnatlishment Division [Cabinet Secretariat] Islamabad & others) G.P.90,3465/2038 (Grakecl Badshah & others v. Ministry of Scienee & Technvloxy thr fa Sceretary, [slamabad & ethers) (on appeal apainst the judgment dated 21.06.2017, posse by oe Omid High Cour, Islamabad in ICA. Nos. 357, 419, 300. 308, 407, sagen a2e, 37h, 301, 406, 409, 371, 340, 402 of 2017 and 166 and 157 of 2018) Mr, Muhammad Shah Nawaz Khan Sikandri, ASC. Mr. Melnmood A, Sheikh, AOR. {in CP.2792/ 18) For the petitioner(s) Hafiz 8. A. Rehman, Sr. ASC. (in CP.9465/18) | Syed Nayab Hassan Gardezi, DAG i Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shub, AOR fin CPs,3826-3536/18, 3745/18 and 25/2018 and also for applicant in CMAs. 8167 and 8168 of 2018) | Mr. Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen, ASC (in CP.3579/18) Mr, Muhammad Akram Gondal, ASC. For the respondentis): (for respdt. No.1 in CP.3535/ 18) Hafiz S. A. Rehman, Sr. ASC lor respdts, 1 to 21 in CMA.8167/ 18}. Date of Hearing’ 13.03.2019. ORDER Gulzar Ahmed, J.— | SP.No. £2018 of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad, dates! 21.06.2018 rendered in ICA No.357 of 2017 (mainly recorded in ICA No.340 of 2027, I | ' ‘The petitioner aeeks leave to appeul against @ judgment | i the ICA was dismissed). | Alt ATTE | b TESTED rT ‘i |FROM FRx NO. 28 Mar, 2019 03:56P_P3 2 Briefly stated the facts necessary for decision of this ls are that the Ministry of information Technology advertised certain posts in the Newspapers including the post of Trainer (Mester Traincr). The petitioner applied for the same and after test and interview by the Departmental Selection Commitice, he was appointed a8 such on 18.02.2010, Thereafter, the petitioner sought regularization of his services which was declined. This prompted him fo file a constitutional petition before the High Court, which was disposed of with a direction to the Ministry of Information Technology to constitute a Committee at the level of Federal Secretaries to consider the case of the petitioner and others for regularization, The National Information Technology Board proparud 4 list of sts employees, but the name of the petitioner was not included. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.181 of 2017 which was disposed of, vide order dated 02.08.2018. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner filed un appeal (ICA No.357 of 2017) hich was also disposed off, vide impugned judgment dated 21.08.2018. Hence, this petition 3 ‘The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that failure on the part of the department to place the petitioner's name before the Regularization Committee was violative of his fundamental rights and the petitioner had a vested right to regularization in terms of the Regularization Policies for the years 2008 and 2011. He maintains that the impugned judgment of the High Court is illegal, unjust and arbitrary 4 Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record, we find that the petitioner was a contract employee and had no vested right to regularization as has repeatedly been held by this Court. It was the prerogative of the employer either to extend the employment of an employee or refuse such extention. An employee cannot be foisted upon an unwilling employer especially so where the employment ts expressly by way of ‘« contract which Ja terminable in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract, The learned Single Judge as well as the TCA Bench have addressed the matter in considerable detail and rive dealt with all categories of employees whether they were contract employers, employees appointed on adhoc basis, project employees or employees appointed againat posts from BS-1 to BS. ATTESTED Cay 2un ermone arvana * 15 and had laid down criteria and parameters for their employment, procees for such employment and the modaliticw of the same. 5 The lcurned counsel for the petitioner hae not been able to show any legal, procedural or juriudictional error in the findings recorded by the learned High Court that may require interlerence by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 185(3) of the Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The petitioner hus slo mot been able to make out a case of Constitution of the Islami iscrinsloalfon stor hasihe given particularbolinny’ pariau' stints similarly placed and yet regularized. Even otherwise, as stated above, it is the prerogative of the employer to hire the employees who in the employer's sole judgment are best suited for his requirement and an employee whose employment is based upon # ‘contract cannot claim a vested right to remain in employment by way of an cxtended contract or through regularization, 6 In view of the foregoing reasons, we do not find any ‘merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed, Leave to appeal it refused C.P.Nos.3526 to 3536 of 2018 & CMA Nos,8167-8168 of 2018, C.P.No.3745 of 2018 and C.P.No.255 of 2019 7. We have heard Syed Nayab Has DAG, in support of the above petitions/applications filed by the Seerctary, Capital Administration & Development Division, Islamabad; Office of the Chief Commissioner, Islamabad Capital Territory, Islamabad and by the Federation of Pakistan through DG, National institute of Science ‘% Technology, Islamabad, respectively. His only grievance is that in Para 123 (i)(iNlit of the impugned judgment, the High Court has wiven directions which are likely to affect employment of thy Government Officials and thus this Court needs to intervene in the ‘same und give clarification n Gardez 8. We have considered the submission of the learned DAG and have noted that in para 123()(ilii) the "Hix Court has given following directions ss Riss tr tt se Wee iT PAot6 Base Shae Meshes esa - aes 29 Mar. 20:9 @3:5EPM_P4FROM : FAK NOL: 28 Mar._2019 O3:56EM_PS af bakison vou Secretary Bien) However in ataitn to of ei oan al contrived ics the foun estons (Wages, contract base, in eny preset, orguntzation, off, divisions, ele, except m accordance ‘ths fa | fi) AW persons have to by appointed on permarent 1 pasta onty andl appointment an Ad hoc basis could rut bo Ponatdwred or regutanation and no individual could ela fang lepu! night for repulanzation under any conideraton ‘thie appointed on Ad hac basis. | fay, _A11 pope employcen sano are appointed in BPS-16 sit above‘ project could ot clam regutarizntn of their feruer uniess the prajects have been conver frm : Steclopmant to nondevelopment phase by the Goverment Gftatlotan, In such eventcaity al those employece who Gre viorking on those projects shall continue © work and i thaw iia appontments vt the proeet Raum been inode oaugh a tranaparent manner ie. advertisurert, fst, and interveuy ‘then ther cases be sent to PPSC in terns of ‘Seedom 110) ofthe Clul Sevvanta het, 1973 read with the ‘Power mfered a ne 4 8S of th FPSC (Punctions) Rules, 978, Tror posts and they appointnente shell be Considered ragutanaed sublet to decision of the PSC on Be quesnon 4 thew elgiotty, qunifeaton and finess merely on the boa of opinion of FPSC o” conducting test tnd vaternew uathin a pard of ix months.” \ 0, We have asked the learned DAG to show that any one of the | directions, as given by the High Court, is inconsistent with any of j the provisions of law more particularly Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the rules made thereunder or FPSC (Functions) Rules, 1978. He was unable to pinpoint any such inconsistency nor he was able to show that such directions could not have been given by the High Court. We have algo gone through the directions given by the High | Court, as repraduced above, and are not persuaded to agree that | | j any of the directions passed by the High Court in the impugned | judgment suffer from any legal Naw requiring interference by this Court. These petitions are, therefore, dismissed and leave refused CMA No.8943 of 2018 in CPLA No.9745 of 2018 10 ‘The petition is barred by 50 days. The application for condonation of delay does not disclose any sulficicnt reason thut may justify condonation. The application is, therefore, dismissed, ‘the petition is also dismissed being time bared (CMA No.908 of 2018 in CI JA Wo.285 of 2019 u ‘The petition is barred by 161 days. The application for condonation of delay docs not disclose any sufficient reason that | i ATTESTED Ps iFROM : FAX NO. ¢ 28 Mar, 2019 93:S7PM_P6 ra renonne aie 4 may justify condonation. ‘The application is, therefore, dismissed, ‘The petition is also dismissed as time barred, C.P.No.3879 of 2018 12, The learned ASC for the petitioners, after arguing the matter, has contended that the petitioners are going to uvail appropriate vemedy in accordance with law and thus wishes (o withdraw this petition. The petition ss, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn. .P.No.3465 of 2018 13, The only grievance of the petitioncrs in this petition, as I canvassed by Hafiz S.A. Rehman, learned Senior ASC, is that in the impugned judgment the High Court has referred 10 the word “gazetted rules’ whereas ing terms and conditions of servive of its employees. He contended that this anomaly between the rules und ! "gazetted byclaws” govt i byclaws is likely to create obstruction to the petitioners in obtaining i i | im the respondent organization there ure | | benefit of the impugned judgment ond thus this Court may give clusification in this regard. 14. We have noted that the grievance of the petitioners is not such where the impugned judgment given by the High Court be snterfered with by this Court rather it acems that the petitioners for Ue clarification sought for, may approach the High Court for obtaining such relicf. The learned Senior ASC is also satisfied in disposal of this matter in such terms. The petition is, therefore, ' disposed of in the above terme. - iff Cpelan Moor , J fds - s 84]. Casi Joes Rod oy Feesp eel Alrseaer gd | Sef AI? : Certified te be True Copy GR UO: mem i mage