' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.--- Impugned herein is the judgment and decree, dated 17-1-2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-V, D.I. Khan vide which the appeal of the petitioner-plaintiff was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 4-9-2006 passed by learned Civil Judge-V, D.I. Khan was maintained.
2. Briefly narrated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner brought a declaratory suit with a prayer for permanent injunction to the effect that he has been posted as Office Assistant, Academic Section, Gomal University, D.I. Khan and defendants Nos.1 to 3 i.e, Vice-Chancellor and others of the Gomal University are going to illegally remove him from service and the action of defendants Nos.1 to 3 is illegal, without jurisdiction, not binding on the rights of the plaintiff- petitioner. It was also prayed that a decree for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction be passed and the defendants be restrained from interference in the service and other privileges of the plaintiff-petitioner.
3. The defendants were summoned who submitted their detailed written statement in which it was inter alia contended that the appointment of the plaintiff-petitioner was made on ad hoc basis on 14-11-1996 on the fixed emolument of Rs,1500 per month but no guarantee had been given to him for the confirmation. Whenever a vacancy occurs, that is advertised in the newspaper and after calling for applications, the same is considered on merits. It was also averred that the allegation of the plaintiff that he was appointed as a permanent employee is not in accordance with the facts of the case. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:---
(1) Whether the plaintiff has got a cause of action and locus standi?
(2) Whether the suit is competent in its present form?
(3) Whether the plaintiff was temporarily appointed for term of 6 months which has repeatedly been extended for next 6 months after expiry of each such period, if so, its effect?
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree prayed for?
(5) Relief.
4. The parties produced their respective evidence as they wished to adduce and the learned Civil Judge-III, D.I. Khan, vide judgment and decree in Civil Suit No,643/1, dismissed the suit on 4-9-1996.
Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an appeal before learned Additional District Judge-V, D.I. Khan which too was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was maintained vide Appeal No,34/6 of 2006 decided on 17-1- 2007.
5. Feeling aggrieved plaintiff-petitioner Waheedullah has come up to this Court through the instant revision petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the initial appointment was an ad hoc basis which was continuously extended and the continuous extension automatically makes the plaintiff-petitioner entitled to the confirmation and thus, he was entitled to be declared as such by the learned trial Court. It was also submitted that the learned Appellate Court has fallen into an error by not declaring the petitioner to be a permanent employee of the Gomal University.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the available record.
8. The initial order of appointment of the petitioner was made as an ad hoc appointment on payment of fixed emoluments of Rs,1500 p.m. Vide order, dated 14-1-1996 which is reproduced as under:--- "Office order ' The Vice-Chancellor, Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan, has been pleased to appoint Mr. Waheed Ullah son. Of Nasrullah Khan Gandapur, D.I. Khan City, as Office Assistant on fixed pay of Rs,1500 p.m. In the Academic Section, Gomal University for a period of six (6) months (against the post vacated by Mr. Muhammad Rafiq, Office Assistant Chemistry Department) with immediate effect."
' This order was being extended for further six months but finally vide order, dated 9-2-1998, the services of the plaintiff-petitioner were terminated with effect from 13-1-1998.
9.
Perusal of the record reveals that the appointment of the plaintiff-petitioner was purely on temporary basis with no guarantee of either its extension or confirmation. So, the petitioner had no vested right to be agitated in the Civil Court and he had no locus standi to claim automatic confirmation as of right. The findings of the two Courts below are strictly in consonance with law, justice and equity and are based on established principles of appreciation of evidence which cannot be interfered with by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, there is no force in the instant revision petition which is dismissed in limine.