ABDUL MALIK Versus DIRETOR GENERAL (D.G.) QUETTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (QDA)

ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J.---- The petitioner filed instant constitutional petition with the following prayer:

"It is accordingly, respectfully, prayed that this Hon 'ble Court may please to declare that the action of the respondents to not regularizing the service of the petitioner against the decision of the governing body (QDA) respondent is illegal, made in excess of authority, as such, not maintainable, consequently they may please be directed to regularize the service of the (9 with any other relief in the interest of justice."

2. Concise facts of the instant petition are that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis as Naib Tehsildar (BPS-14) vide order dated 3rd July, 2017 in Quetta Development Authority (QDA). The respondent No.1 vide order dated 6th November, 2017 redesigned the contract appointment of petitioner as Supervisor (BPS-14) in Special Magistrate Branch. The governing body of QDA in its meeting dated 13th November, 2017 decided to regularize the services of thirteen (13) contract employees of QDA and recommendations were sent by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 for regularization of thirteen contract employees including the petitioner, who was pleased to regularize the services of twelve contract employees except the petitioner, hence the petitioner is before this court.

3. Heard and perused the record. The petitioner was appointed as Naib Tchsildar (BPS-14) on contract basis by respondent No. 1 vide Order No. 1996/2001/PS/DG (QDA): 4786-88 dated 3rd July, 2017. Whereafter, the respondent No.1 redesigned his contract appointment as Supervisor (BPS-14) in Special Magistrate Branch vide Order No.1-996 / 2001/PS/DG (QDA): 5054-59 dated 06th November, 2017. The petitioner is aggrieved of non-regularization of his service. The record transpires that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis without any advertisement which is in violation of rights of other citizens to equality of opportunity. The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan (The Constitution) cannot allow discrimination among the citizens and prefer one to another. All the citizens are equal in the eye of law. No one can be discriminated. It would be appropriate to reproduce Article 27 (1) of the Constitution:

"27. Safeguard against discrimination in services.----(1) No citizen otherwise qualified for appointment in the service of Pakistan shall be discriminated against in respect of any such appointment on the ground only of race, religion, caste. sex, residence or place of birth:

Provided that, for a period not exceeding [forty] years from e commencing day, posts may be reserved for persons belonging any class or area to secure their adequate representation in the service of Pakistan:

Provided further that, in the interest of the said service, specified posts or services may be reserved for members of either sex if such posts or services entail the performance of duties and functions which cannot be adequately performed by members of the other sex [:]

[Provided also that under-representation of any class or area in the service of Pakistan may be redressed in such manner as may be determined by an Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament Reference is made to the case of Dr. Basharat Hassan Bashir v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Water and Powers 2020 PLC (C.S.) 1331, wherein it was held:

"40 A person appointed to any office under the State without any advertisement is appointed in violation of the rights of other citizens to equality of opportunity in matters relating to appointment to any office under the State guaranteed to them under Article 27(1) of the Constitution, which provides that no citizen otherwise qualified for appointment in the service of Pakistan shall be discriminated against in respect of any such appointment on the ground only of race, religion, caste, sex, residence, or place of birth. The spirit of the said Article applies with equal force to appointments made in statutory bodies, autonomous bodies and corporations owned and controlled by the Government. A court cannot hold such an appointment to be legal and proper on the ground that others have been similarly appointed without any advertisement. A person appointed without an advertisement to any office under the State cannot be allowed 1 to continue in such office by a Court on the ground of violation of the right to equality guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution."

The Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Dr. Naveed Tufail's case 2003 SCMR 291, held:

"----The appointments in the public sector is a trust in the hands of public authorities and it is their legal and moral duty to discharge their function as trustee with complete transparency as per requirement of law so that no person who is eligible to hold such posts, is excluded from the process of selection and is deprived of his right of appointment in service."

4. Transparency entails the equal opportunity. The person eligible in terms of criteria and qualification have a right to be given fair consideration through transparent process. Without transparency merit cannot not be ensured. The purpose of advertisement is the eligible candidate may apply and appeared in test and interview. Every citizen has equal right. The appointment without advertisement could deprive the aspirant to apply for the post. The Honorable Supreme Court in Munawar Khan's case 1993 SCMR 128 held:

-----In view of the Constitutional requirement and the interim order already passed in Human Right Case 104 of 1992 it is expected that in future all appointments shall be made after due publicity in the area from which the recruitments had to take place."

5. As per record the Authority appointed the petitioner on six months contract basis. The petitioner without any objection accepted the terms and conditions and thereafter submitted his joining report. The service of such I employee could be terminated without assigning any reason. Employee had no right to claim extension/ regularization in his contract period as a vested right. Reliance is placed on the case of Dr. Abid Ali v. Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab 2017 PLC (C.S) 488.

6. Admittedly the petitioner was appointed on contract basis for a period of six months. The appointment being purely contractual could be terminated at any time. The petitioner has no vested right to claim regularization. The employer is well within his right to retain or dispose with service of an employee. Reliance is placed on Province of Punjab through Secretary Agriculture Department Lahore v. Muhammad Arif 2020 SCMR 505.

For the above reason we do not find any merit in the instant petition, which is hereby dismissed.

MQ/43/Bal. Petition dismissed.