IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH
CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Present:
Irshad Ali Shah, J.
Agha Faisal, J.
CP D105 of 2012 : Sadaqat Ali Bhatti & others vs.
E.D.O Community Development Department Kamber-Shahdadkot & Others.
CP D 309 of 2012 : Hakim Ali & others vs.
Province of Sindh &Others.
CP D866 of 2014 : Majid Ali & others vs.
Province of Sindh &Others.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Habibullah Ghouri, Advocate
Mr. Noorullah Khan Rind, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, Addl. A.G.
Date of hearing : 01.02.2022.
Date of announcement : 01.02.2022.
ORDER
Agha Faisal, J. The petitioners herein claimed to have been temporary/ contractual/ contingent employees of the respondents in the past and have filed these petitions for regularization of theirlong terminated employment. Since the controversy and subject matter is common interse, therefore, at the request of the respective learned counsel, these petitions shall be determined vide this common order.
2. Per petitioners' counsel, the services of the petitioners had been engaged on temporary/ contractual/ contingent basis, however, discontinued in the year 2011-2012. It was submitted that the petitioners are entitled to regularization of their long terminated employment, hence, the present petitions.
3. Learned A.A.G. at the very outset referred to the paragraph wise comments of the respondents, to demonstrate that purported documentation of the petitioners could not be verified/authenticated. It was added that the certain petitioners claimed to have been engaged by an Executive District Officer, which office has become defunct post revival of the Local Government system. It was further added that the very documents relied upon by the petitioners themselves demonstrate that their services were engaged on temporarily basis and could be terminated at any time without notice. It was further added that in the manifest absence of any subsisting relationship, the petitioners were not entitled for consideration of regularization.
4. Heard and perused. It is the petitioners' case that they were temporarily engaged by the respondents, however, the said relationship has not existed for a decade. Even otherwise, this Court has not been assisted with any law conferring entitlement upon the petitioners to be considered for regularization. The august Supreme Court has time and again stressed on the need for transparency in public sector appointments and has deprecated any tendency to abjure the competitive process. While there remained no restraint upon the petitioners to participate in any competitive recruitment process, the attempt to obtain regular appointment in the garb of regularization, while avoiding a transparent competitive process, could not be justified before this Court.
5. The august Supreme Court has maintained in Khushal Khan[1] that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to revive, amend or alter contracts; there was no vested right to seek regularization for employees hired on contractual basis unless there was legal and statutory basis for the same; contractual employees had no automatic right to be regularized unless the same has specifically been provided for in a law; and that the relationship of contractual employees is governed by principles of master and servant. A Division Bench of this Court has held in Anjum Badar[2] that contractual employees had no vested right for regular appointment or to seek regularization of their services, hence, were debarred from invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
6. It is trite law that contractual employees are devoid of any generic entitlement for regularization[3]. Petitioners' counsel have been unable to identify any specific law conferring any right upon the petitioners to be considered for regularization[4].
7. It is, thus, our deliberated view that the petitioner has failed to set forth a case for exercise of the discretionary[5] writ jurisdiction of this Court. In view hereof, these petitions are hereby dismissed.
JUDGE
JUDGE
[1]Per Ijaz ul Ahsan J in Khushal Khan Khattak University & Others vs. Jabran Ali Khan & Others reported as 2021 SCMR 977.
[2]Per Nadeem Akhtar J in Anjum Badar vs. Province of Sindh & Othersreported as PLD 2021 Sindh 328.
[3]Per Ijaz ul Ahsan J in Govt of KPK vs. Jawad Ali & Others reported as 2021 SCMR 185; Per Mansoor Ali Shah J in Province of Punjab vs. Dr. Javed Iqbal reported as 2021 SCMR 767; Per Ijaz ul Ahsan J in Owais Shams Durrani vs. Vice Chancellor Bacha Khan University reported as 2020 SCMR 2041; Per Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb J in First Womens Bank vs. Muhammad Tayyab reported as 2020 PLC (C.S.) 86.
[4]Per Ijaz ul Ahsan J in Govt of KPK Welfare Board vs. Raheel Ali Gohar & Others reported as 2020 SCMR 2068;
[5] Per Ijaz Ul Ahsan J. in Syed Iqbal Hussain Shah Gillani vs. PBC & Others reported as 2021 SCMR 425; Muhammad Fiaz Khan vs. Ajmer Khan & Another reported as 2010 SCMR 105.