1. G. SAFDAR SHAH, J.-The judgment of the High Court would show that petitioner Mehar Gul Muhammad was permanently employed as Engineer in the Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation. However, his services were lent to the Engineering College, Sind University, Jamshoro and thereafter to Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Nawabshah. In due course the said University decided that they did not need the services of the petitioner and consequently placed his services at the disposal of his. Parent department namely the Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation. On 29-10-1978, however, the said Corporation wrote to the Registrar of the said University requesting that---- "please postpone the repatriation of Mr. Mahar to P. M. D. C. For a period of 4 months at least, as we have no vacant position at present for him in Projects in southern region of Pakistan against which he could be absorbed. In case he is posted in the northern area where there is some opening, it could be a hardship to him, and a dislocation of his family as he hails from the province - of Sind.
2. We are hopeful that within a period of 4 months we would be in a position to post him back in southern region by making necessary internal adjustments. In the' meantime you are requested to kindly utilize his services at Mehran University of Engineering and Technology."
3. It appears that petitioner held different view in regard to his employment. The stand taken by him was that according to understanding given to him, he was permanently to be absorbed in the said University whereafter he was to terminate his lien with the Pakistan Mineral Development Corpora- -petition. In order to vindicate his stand, he filed Writ Petition D-1434/1978 in the High Court of Sind at Karachi but the same was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench on 4-12-1978 with the following observation "Mr. Ghulam Haider has not, however, been able to produce any document showing any such undertaking. The respondent Mehran University can, at any time, return the person taken on deputation, and they cannot be compelled to retain the incumbent in their depart--ment as Assistant Professor if they don't want him. Under these circumstances this petition is not maintainable."
4. We have heard Mr. Mehar Gul Muhammad in person. Before us, he reiterated the same contention which he had urged in the High Court but was unable to show us any document in support of his said contention. The four documents relied upon by him and which appear at pages 55, 61, 78 and 84 of the paper book, do not support him. It is true that at page 55 there does appear the alleged endorsement of the Vice Chancellor of the said University to the effect that; "Please put up a note for consideration of his case. We should try to accommodate him since we are very much handicapped because of shortage of staff and adequately qualified staff. We would like to retain Mr. Gul Muhammad in all conditions. His demand is reasonable." but there is nothing on the record of the case to show that the desired note was ever put up before the competent authority or any concrete action taken in the matter. Evidently therefore, the said endorsement does not advance toe case of the petitioner.
5. We are, therefore, of the view that the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court was not exceptionable. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.