2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.‑‑-Order, dated 28‑7‑1999 by respondent No.1, whereby the petitioners have been relieved of their duties from service by him, has been challenged through this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Briefly stated it has the under-mentioned background:‑‑

2. In the year 1979, it was decided at: the Governmental level to build a new mosque in the premises of the Shrine of Hazrat Data Ganj Bakhsh. This Project was named as Data Darbar New Mosque Project, which had four phases. In order to implement the project, some recruitments were made by respondent No.

1. The petitioners were appointed through appointment orders issued to them respectively, for their respective assignments. One of the conditions of their appointment, common to all, was that the appointment was purely temporary which would stand terminated automatically on completion of the Project without notice. On completion of the first phase of the Project, the services of the petitioners we terminated w.e.f. 31‑12‑1991 Writ Petition No.1476 of 1992 was filed by them to challenge the same, which was eventually accepted vide judgment, dated 4‑7‑1993. The said judgment was assailed by respondent No.1 by filing I.C.A. 337 of 1993 which was admitted to hearing. However, as the order passed by the learned Single Judge had, been implemented, the operation of the judgment was not suspended. The petitioners accordingly continued to perform their duties till the completion of‑the Project and vide impugned order, dated 28‑7‑1999 their services were dispensed with in view of the completion of the Complex.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were appointed on permanent basis despite the specific insertion in their appointment letter that the same is of purely temporary nature. It is contended that the petitioners being regular employees, their services could not be dispensed with in the manner it has been done.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. l contents that the appointment of the petitioners was purely of temporary nature meant for Data Darbar Project, their services have been dispensed with on completion of the Project; and that there is no valid basis for their claim of regular appointment.

5. In their appointment letter it was a specific stipulation that the appointment was purely temporary and will "stand terminated automatically after completion of the Project without any notice, if not required otherwise. This was thus a basic and inherent condition of their employment that on completion of the Project their services will stand terminated.

6. While deciding Writ Petition No. 1476 of 1992 the learned Judge had noted that "I am informed that the said Project has four phases and merely because after the completion of one phase some time was to intervene before the start of the second phase, Project could be treated to have been completed to justify termination of services of the petitioners in pursuance of that clause of the appointment letter which provided that their services would stand automatically terminated on the completion of the Project. The Project could not be deemed to have been completed unless all the four phases were completed therefore, the petitioner's rights to continue in service was not adversely affected merely because start of work against second phase has not yet begun". It shows that the appointment of the petitioners was at the most to be considered till the completion of the Project and their termination from service before that was declared illegal. Admittedly the Project is over and the Complex is complete, as a result whereof the services of the petitioners have been dispensed with.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that their appointment be treated as permanent on regular basis, is not tenable in view of the nature and conditions of their appointment, and has to be repelled. No length of service, which is purely of temporary nature, can automatically result into a regular appointment or on permanent basis. In Maulvi. Ghulam Rasool v. Administrator Auqaf, Sindh and another (1976 SCMR 73) a Khateeb and Pesh Imam employed by the Auqaf Department on temporary basis, had continued in such capacity for about 22 years when his appointment was terminated. His plea before the Court that by performing duties continuously for such a long time "had acquired the status of permanency" was rejected by the Supreme Court that his appointment was on purely temporary basis. In Federation of Pakistan and another v. Hashim Shah Qureshi (1987 SCMR 156) it was observed by their Lordships that "No rule or term and condition of appointment has been cited for claiming that continuation for 8 years or more ipso facto converted the temporary appointment into permanent appointment. If the post against which his appointment was made was itself temporary he could not be made permanent nor could his posting on a permanent post make his appointment permanent". It is thus evident that it is the tenor of the appointment order which governs the situation as to the nature of appointment. If it is purely temporary, it will remain as such irrespective of length of service, unless made permanent by the competent Authority. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the petitioners were at any time made permanent. Since the Project is complete, they have no legitimate right to challenge the impugned order. For the above reasons, this petition has no merit, which is, accordingly, dismissed. H.B.T./Z‑14/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.