1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

" The services of Mr. Zafar Iqbal s/o Rashid Ahmad r/o 525/G, Rana Colony, Jhang Saddar are hereby terminated with effect from 17‑11‑1993 (F.N.) under the provision of clause No.7 of this Office Order No.669/HM dated 21‑9‑1993." He has made the following prayer in this petition: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the order dated 18‑11‑1993 passed by the respondent No.2 may kindly be declared null and void, based on mala fide, being against the law and liable to be set aside. It is further prayed that the petitioner may very graciously be ordered to be reinstated on his post..."

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition and have also perused the material placed on the record, including Appointment Order No.669/HM, dated 21‑9‑1993, copy whereof is available at Annexure `A'. Clause 7 of this order of appointment is couched in the following terms:‑‑ "The appointment is made on purely temporary basis and is liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason." The impugned order specifically makes a mention to the afore‑quoted clause 7 and its invocation by the respondent Headmaster with a view to putting an end to the services of the petitioner as Chowkidar in class IV has not been shown to be suffering from any illegality much less a jurisdictional error. The contention that after having taken the charge of the post against which he was appointed on 21‑9‑1993. the respondent‑authorities were left with no locus poenitentiae to rescind or recall the same, loses sight of the fact that the covenant under which the assignment was offered to the petitioner did contain specific mention of the nature of the appointment being purely temporary and further subjected the same to the availability of a right with the respondent‑authorities to put an end to the same "at any tune without assigning any reason". The impugned order has been passed by the competent authority and the prayer for declaring clause 7 as void ab initio, is the result of some misconception on the part of the petitioner. Even the next contention that the impugned order has been made to take effect from 17‑11‑1993 which date falls within the period during which the petitioner was made to perform his functions at more than two places of posting by the authorities themselves and therefore, without considering the effect of such performance of his functions by the petitioner, the impugned order suffers from any illegality/irregularity, can hardly furnish any reason for the reinstatement of the petitioner into services in that the impugned order has not been passed without being cognizant of the fact that he has received his salaries for the period during which he continued in service and no direction with a view to refund of the salary for the said period has been made in the impugned order. Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. H.B.T./Z‑114/L Petition dismissed.