MUHAMMAD AZAM SUHAIL and others vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Resources, Islamabad and others

' SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J.---Since a common question of law and fact is involved, therefore, this judgment shall dispose of the above appeals.

2. The appellants in all these four appeals joined the respondent company known as Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. As management Trainees under a scheme introduced by the company. The terms and conditions for the said scheme are laid down in a letter issued to all the appellants and the relevant provisions of the said letter read as under:-- "(1) Under the Management Traninee Scheme, you shall undergo comprehensive training in our Organization. During the training period you shall receive a fixed stipend of Rs,6,000 (Rupees six thousand only) p.m. No other allowance will be admissible to you.

(2) Your training is for a fixed period of 2 years which is not extendable under any circumstances and does not entitle you for a regular job/service in the Company.

(3) Your training may be terminated at any' time without any notice or assigning any reason, should your performance during training period he considered unsatisfactory by the Company.

' Besides these important terms and conditions, there are various other terms and conditions, which need not be referred to as they are not relevant for purposes of the present controversy. A perusal of the above letter shows that essentially it is a contract under which the appellants joined the respondent company as Management Trainees. After completion of the training period, the appellants were not absorbed in the Company as its regular employees. Aggrieved by the said refusal on the part of the Company, the appellants invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court by way of filing writ petition, which was dismissed vide order impugned. Leave was granted to consider the questions raised in the petitions.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The crucial question arising for determination is whether the appellants had any right, which could be enforced in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court conferred on it by virtue of Article 199 of the Constitution. The answer to this question is in the negative inasmuch as the perusal of the appointment letter clearly shows that it was for a fixed period and it was specifically provided therein that the completion of the training scheme by the trainees like the appellants, would not confer upon them any right to be absorbed in the Company. It was further urged before us that the appellants had legitimate expectancy for being absorbed in the executive cadre. In our view, this contention is devoid of force because as already observed, the appellants were selected and the terms and conditions of their training did not provide for their absorption after successful training.

Furthermore, under the regulations of the Company, all the jobs to be filled are to be advertised and the selection has to take place on open merit basis. However, in the High court, the respondent Company had produced letter dated 16-12-1997, which contains the policy decision of the Company for recruitment. Relevant paragraph of the said'letter reads as under:-- "The Company is in the process of evaluating its manpower requirements. Any vacancies determined as a result of the study, shall be filled by way of open merit. According to Executive Service Rules of the Company, recruitment in the executive cadre can only be made after press advertisement. It may kindly be noted that the Management Trainees who have completed their training in the Company or are going to complete their 2 years satisfactory training shall be eligible to apply and compete for the advertised positions commensurate with their qualification and experience."

4. The learned Single Judge of the High Court while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants had observed that as and when the jobs are advertised, the appellants would be eligible to compete with others and obviously they would have an edge over the other competitors on account of the training, which was already imparted to them. Lastly, we may observe that to enforce a contract, the remedy does not lie under the Constitutional provisions because it is settled law that no contract can be enforced through a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The principle of promissory estoppel is also not attracted because no right vests in the appellants to be absorbed in the service of the Company after completion of successful training.

5. Resultantly, these appeals fail and are hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.