1987 PLP 74 (CLC)

Muhammad Arshad Choudhary for Petitioner. Yakub K. Yousufzai A.‑G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 24th September, 1986. NAZIR AHMAD BHATTI ACTG‑ C.J.‑‑By this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 Muhamma Hadi has challenged the order, dated 18‑4‑1985 of termination of hi services by the Agriculture Research Institute Sariab, Quetta responder No. 2.

2. The facts briefly stated are that Pakistan Agricultural Research Council (hereinafter referred to as "the Council") for the promotion and research of agriculture in the country was established under the Pakistan Agricultural Research Council Ordinance, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance). For the said purpose various programmes were made from time to time throughout Pakistan. In the year 1983 similar programme was started in Baluchistan under the name of Nation Research Programme on weeds of cereals" (hereinafter referred to the "said programme"). The said programme was to be carried o under the control and supervision of respondent No.

2. The said programme was prepared and P.C.‑1 was approved by the Council the year 1983 and it was to be undertaken on the grant of the American Government under P.L.‑

480. The programme commenced on 29‑5‑19 and it was to continue for a period of three years. For the implementation of the programme some persons had to be employed and various posts were created out of which the petitioner was selected and appointed Senior Research Officer in B.P.S.‑18 vide letter, dated 27th August 1984. The petitioner assumed charge of his duty but all of a sudden the services of the petitioner were terminated by respondent No. vide letter, dated 18‑4‑1985. The petitioner has inter alia prayed that the termination of his service by respondent No. 3 was illegal and m fide, that the programme had started late and it had to continue the year 1987 and that the petitioner was condemned unheard. He the petition

3. In their rejoinder all the respondents have alleged that services of the petitioner were terminated during the period of probation and he had no locus standi to file the petition, that the petition filed after a period of about 14 months and it suffered from laches that the petitioner took no interest in the performance of his duties and his services were terminated due to negligence of duty, crew problems for the office, habitual of ignoring the orders of his super and misconduct with his staff. They also mentioned in their counter affidavit that the programme had also been terminated and one of reason for termination of the programme was the misconduct inefficiency of the petitioner himself.

4. It shall be seen from the pleadings of the parties that it was a Bye‑ foreign aided programme and its entire duration was three years. The petitioner was appointed on purely temporary basis and his services not could be terminated at any time without any reason being assigned of the record produced also shows that the programme had also to be good terminated mainly on account of the misbehaviour and misconduct of from the petitioner held

5. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Council being a statutory body and having its service rules, the services of the petitioner could not be dispensed with except in accordance with writ law and rules made thereunder. It is correct that the Council was established under the provisions of the Ordinance but the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show us if there was any statutory rules governing the terms and conditions of service of the employees the of the Council. There is another reason that the petitioner was employed on purely temporary basis for the said programme only, the duration of which was only three years. Even if the programme had continued the petitioner could at the most be the employee of the council for a of period of three years and not more.

6. There is yet another aspect of the matter which appears to be No most important to us. The programme was terminated after about a lot year of its start. In such a circumstance how a writ could be issued in Su favour of the petitioner when the organisation under which he was working had been wound up. Moreover, the services of the petitioner were purely temporary and could be dispensed with at any time without assigning any reason. On this score as well the petitioner had no grouse. The conduct of the petitioner could also not be worthy of any credence. Actually he was responsible for the discontinuation of the programme. It was his conduct which compelled the respondents to terminate the programme.

7. Even otherwise the petition suffers from unexplained laches. The services of the petitioner were terminated in April, 1985 and he filed the present petition in June, 1986, 14 months after the cause of action, if any, had arisen to him. He has not explained) this delay.

8. It is a pity that such an useful programme initiated with the assistance of foreign aid and so essential for the agricultural progress of this backward province of Baluchistan had to be discontinued mainly due to the misbehaviour, misconduct and inefficiency, of the petitioner, still the petitioner has the cheek to come up with his petition.

9. We would dismiss this petition with costs. A.A. ' Petition dismissed