1. ' ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, J.--- By this Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner has challenged the vires of the orders dated 14-2- 2008 and 14-6-2008 passed by the respondents thereby terminated the services of the petitioner.
2. The facts, necessary to decide the present petition in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on 9-9-2003 as Secretary to Director General Office of Dr. A.Q. Khan Institute of Bio Technology and Generic Engineering Karachi. After her appointment, she performed her duties diligently and efficiently. Initially her appointment was temporary and during the course of her employment she was also offered furnished accommodation, as such, she was also assigned official accommodation by the respondents and because of her efficiency, she was also given additional charge of the administrative officer vide order dated 23-11-2004 and was therefore, performing her duties to the satisfaction of her superiors. Her miseries started from 10-3-2007 when Dr. S. Qasim Mehdi, Director General took the charge and withdrew her additional charge of administrative officer and she was subjected to the biased attitude of the respondents. She availed leave on maternity ground and after that due to hospitalization of her husband owing to a serious accident and on joining on 22-1-2008, she was appointed Secretary on contract basis for a period of three months with effect from 22-1-2008 to which she objected vide her letters dated 26-2-2008 and 13- 3-2008. It is further stated that after expiry of three months, fresh appointment letter dated 14-6- 2008 was issued to her for extension of contract period, which she challenged to be nullity in the eye of law and have no legal effect which have been issued against the mandatory provisions of law and contrary to the principle of natural Justice, hence the present petition.
3. ' The respondents have filed their counter-affidavit, inter alia, denying the allegations contained in the petition and have stated that the post of Secretary to Director General is of grade 17 and the said post could be filled on the recommendation of the Selection Board and the petitioner was appointed on contract basis by the then Director General without recommendation of the Selection Board. It is further stated that during the pendency of the petition, contract period of the petitioner had expired and on expiry of contract period, the post was advertised in newspapers for regular appointment as Secretary, but the petitioner did not submit any application for her regular appointment.
4. ' We have heard Mr. Gohar Iqbal, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Muhammad Tasneem, Advocate for the respondents.
5. ' Mr. Gohar Iqbal, Advocate for the petitioner vehemently contended that initially the appointment of the petitioner was for the indefinite period and because of the language of the said appointment letter the appointment of the petitioner seems to be permanent in nature and the respondents subsequently cannot change the status of the service of the petitioner by re-appointing her on contract basis, which was seriously objected by the petitioner but her representation was not considered properly, as such the petitioner was discriminated by the respondents while changing her status of service.
6. ' Mr. Muhammad Tasneem, Advocate for the respondents vehemently contended that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on contract basis which was extended from time to time and the post of Secretary to Director General is of 17 grade and only the Selection Board is competent to appoint Secretary on regular basis, as such, the petitioner was never appointed on permanent basis by the Selection Board or the competent authority and after completion of her contract period, she has been relieved from the service and that the petition has been filed just to pressurize the respondents for certain motives.
7. ' We have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and have gone through the material available before us.
8. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that the post of the Secretary to Director- General falls in Grade-17 and also not controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appointment of the Secretary may be made on the recommendation of the Selection Board and the petitioner was never recommended for appointment by the Selection Board. The initial appointment letter dated 9-9-2003 issued in favour of the petitioner also speaks about temporary appointment of the petitioner to the post of Secretary against a fixed salary of Rs,12,000 along with free furnished apartment, and the appointment can be terminated on service of three months notice from either side. The language of the initial appointment of the petitioner is unambiguous which speaks the appointment of the petitioner on temporary basis and no where it is mentioned that she has been appointed in Grade 17 on permanent basis. The petitioner in the month of March 2007 applied for long leave on maternity ground vide letter annexure 'F' which was granted by the respondent on 20-3-2007 and after expiry of maternity leave when she submitted her joining report vide annexure T to the petition, she was appointed in Grade-17 on contract basis for a period of three months with effect from 22-1-2008 vide appointment letter dated 14-2-2008. In pursuance of fresh appointment, she joined her duties and also made representation. Petitioner has also produced letter dated 14-6- 2008 which shows that she was re-hired as Secretary in D.G. Office in Grade-17 with effect from April 2008 for six months. She also joined the said service though she had submitted representation against her re-appointment. The record therefore shows that the post of Secretary falls in Grade-17 and her appointment in any way was not on permanent basis and was on contract basis. The contract employee has no right to claim his appointment on permanent basis and he can relieve immediately on target date.
9. It has further been emerged out from the record that the post of the Secretary to the Director General falls in BPS-17 and appointment for the said post is completely within the domain of Selection Board, on whose recommendation the Secretary in BPS-17 could be appointed and admittedly the appointment of the petitioner was never recommended by the Selection Board and she was simply appointed by the Director General for a limited period on contract basis, which period has been expired. The respondents in their counter-affidavit have also pleaded that after expiry of the contract period, the petitioner has been relieved from the charge of the said fact has also not been controverted by the petitioner, as such, presently the petitioner is no more in service and the relief claimed by her in the present petition, therefore, could not be allowed.
10. ' For the aforesaid reasons and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the petition has no merit and the relief prayed for by her could not be granted. The petition was dismissed by us vide short order dated 11-2-2009 for the reasons to be recorded later on, and the above are the, reasons for the same.