' SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.---Writ Petition No, 2069 of 2006 has been filed by the petitioner to call in question the validity of order, dated 23-12-2005. It is the case of the petitioner that initially on 1-8- 1994 he was employed as baggage attendant at Karachi and subsequently on 19-8-1999 as aircraft attendant and later transferred to Lahore. Petitioner is stated to have moved the respondent-Corporation that his services be regularized but his request was not adhered to. He also filed writ petition which was disposed of by this Court in terms of order, dated 3-10-2005 whereafter his representation referred to above was also dismissed by means of impugned order, dated 23-12-2005.
2. Mr. Umar Sharif Advocate enters appears on behalf of respondent-PIA. He has raised preliminary objection as to the maintainability of law. Learned counsel states that petitioner has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court twice for the same cause of action. Adds that by virtue of Chief Executive Order No,6 of 2001, Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and I.R.O. Are inapplicable vis a vis respondent. Further contends that petitioner was a daily wager having been employed through contractor and was not a permanent workman. And that petitioner stands precluded from invocation of the constitutional jurisdiction for having suppressed the material facts with regard to his date of birth. Further asserts that rules and regulations of the respondent-Corporatioh did not have the status of statutory rules so as to confer a fundamental or legal right on the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court. To substantiate his contentions, learned counsel relies on 1988 SCMR 60 Habib Bank Ltd. And others v. Syed Zia ul Hasan Kazmi, 2002 PLC (C.S.) 592 Asad Ullah Mangi and others v. Pakistan International Airlines and others and 2006 PLC 374 Muhammad Naeem and 19 others v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation through Chairman and 7 others.
3. Being confronted with the stance taken on behalf of respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to rebur the same. Resultantly, this petition being misconceived is dismissed accordingly.