' RAJA FAYYAZ AHMAD, J.--- This Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal preferred by the petitioner, Saima Gardezi has been directed against the consolidated judgment dated 30-7-2005 passed by the learned Members of the Federal Service Tribunal; Lahore hereinafter referred to as the learned Tribunal, in Service Appeal No,96(L)(CE) of 2004 of the petitioner and in Service Appeals Nos.97, 98, 118(L)(CE) of 2004, whereby these appeals were dismissed in limine.
2. The precise relevant facts of the ease are that the petitioner along with Sarwat Zaib, Naureen Anjum and Shagufta (appellants before the learned Tribunal), were initially appointed as Cashiers Assistant on contract with the First Women Bank. Subsequently, their 'services were regularized but they were kept on probation for a period of six months extendable at the discretion of the Bank management. On the expiry of the probation period of six months, the same was further extended, however, vide order dated 30-6-2004 their' services were terminated. The departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner and the other appointees on.Probation were rejected, thereafter the petitioner and the other above mentioned appellants preferred separate appeals before the learned Tribunal praying therein that they be reinstated in the service with back-benefits by setting aside the orders impugned before the learned Tribunal.
3. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner has been heard at some length. He contended that as the petitioner had rendered service with the respondent-Bank without any complaint and grievance noticed by the management with regard to the performance of her duties and efficiency, therefore; there was no justification on the part of the management to terminate her services and particularly for the reason that extension of the period of probation of the petitioner was not conveyed to her. According to the learned counsel, the termination of the petitioner from service was motivated with malice and nothing could be shown to the learned Tribunal by the Bank management about the justification, if any; warranting for terminating the services of the petitioner, therefore, in view' of the law, equity and fairplay the impugned judgment to the extent of the petitioner requires to be reversed.
4. The contentions noted above put forth on behalf of the petitioner have been considered in the light of the impugned judgment gone through including the documents filed with the petition. It as admitted feature of the ease that the petitioner was initially appointed against the post on contract for a specified period and thereafter, her services were regularized subject to the condition that she will remain on probation for a period of six months extendable at the discretion of the management of the Bank and after that the probation period of the petitioner was further extended. This position has also not been disputed or controverted by the petitioner, apparent from the impugned judgment as in such behalf it was submitted during the arguments before the Tribunal that no intimation was conveyed to the petitioner about the further extension of her period of probation, which per se even if be believed as correct would not alter the status of the petitioner from that of a probationer in service. It has rightly been observed by the learned Tribunal that the services of a probationer can be terminated or dispensed with at any time during the period of probation without assigning any reason in view of the settled law on the subject. No substantial question of law of public importance could be raised on behalf of the petitioner within the meaning of Article 212(3)of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Consequently; this petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.