' SHAHID ANWER BAJWA, J. This constitution petition has been filed and the following reliefs have been sought.
(1) The respondent No,1 may be called and asked to show that under what law he is holding the post of OSD (Admn.) as his appointment was made in complete disregard of the provisions of the Rule and in contravention of the Constitution and law enunciated by the superior Courts and, if satisfied, this honourable Court may be pleased to declare his appointment as illegal, without authority and of no legal effect and the respondent No,2 may be directed to fill the said position on merit as per the rules and law/constitution.
(2) To declare the said post as vacant and direct the respondent No,2 fill the same as per rules and laws.
2. Facts of the petition are that the respondent No,1 was taken in employment by this Court vide Notification dated February 3, 2009. The entire Notification reads as under:--- "On the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the honourable Chief Justice has been pleased to appoint Mr. Assim Jamil Zubedi son of Muhammad Jamil Zubedi as "Deputy Nazir (Accounts)" (B-18) in High Court of Sindh Karachi on ad hoc basis, against the ost lying vacant, till the further orders."
3. Petitioner who appeared in person after referring to the Notification submitted that Respondent No,1 has been appointed on ad hoc basis and there is no provision for appointment on ad hoc basis in the Sindh High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006.
The petitioner further referred to paras 5, 6 and 7 of the counter-affidavit, filed by respondent No, 1.
It is stated therein that an advertisement was placed in Daily Dawn on 3-12-2008 for recruitment on a vacancy of Member Finance. It was in BS-20. The respondent No,1 was interviewed by the Selection Committee but was not selected for the advertised post. However he was offered post of Deputy Nazir (Accounts) in BS-18 on ad hoc basis which post he accepted. The petitioner submitted that without advertisement hiring someone is a violation of law and in this regard he referred to Dr. Naveeda Tufail and 72 others v. Government of Punjab and others 2003 SCM R 291 where the following observations have been made:--- "....The making of recruitments on ad hoc basis with or without advertisement of the posts in the normal circumstances , amounts to curtail the legitimate right of appointment of deserving persons on regular basis and is against the policy of law. The concept of ad hoc appointments against the posts in public sector is a stop-gap arrangement which is not the permanent character of the civil service. It is not proper in the public sector to occupy the posts required to be filled through the method prescribed by law by making ad hoc appointments and allow the incumbents to continue in the same position beyond the terms of their employment without making any step for the filling the posts on regular basis."
4. Mr. M.M. Aqil Awan for respondent No,1 placed on record a copy of an advertisement published in Daily Dawn Karachi on June 13, 2010 for the post of Deputy Nazir (Accounts) and submitted that the process of regular employment is underway and ad hoc appointment is only a stop gap arrangement. He also challenged maintainability of the petition in view of provision contained in Article 199(5) of the Constitution and in this regard relied upon Muhammad Iqbal and others v.
Lahore High Court through Registrar and others 2010 SCM R 632.
5. Mr. Adnan Karim learned Additional Advocate-General Sindh adopted contentions of Mr. M.M.
Aqil Awan.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and have also gone through the case-law cited at the bar. Judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by the Petitioner clearly implies that in the exceptional situations ad hoc appointment can be made without advertisement and it is only a stop gap arrangement and is not a permanent recruitment. Advertisement published in newspaper on June 13, 2010 clearly indicates that steps are being taken for regular recruitment through an open process by inviting applications.
7. For writ of quo warranto there can be essentially of three grounds; firstly it may be contended that the holder of the post does not possess the prescribed qualification. Thus there must be prescribed qualification against which holder is to be juxtaposed. In the present petition it is not alleged that respondent No,1 does not posses the 'B prescribed qualification; second ground for quo warranto is that authority appointing is not the competent authority. This is also not a ground taken in this petition. The third ground for a writ of quo warranto is that the procedure prescribed by law has not been followed. The Petitioner has failed to point out as to whether any procedure has been prescribed for ad hoc appointments. He has also failed to refer to any case law to support that if no procedure is prescribed, the employment would be in violation of law. Violation of law presupposes that there are provisions existing in law, whether statute or statutory rules, which have been violated while making the appointment. Contention of learned counsel that Sindh High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006 have no provision for ad hoc employment does not appear to be correct in view of rule, 15 thereof which states that if no provision is made in the rules, provision relating to employees in posts in the Provincial Government shall be applicable. This Constitution Petition is therefore devoid of any merits and is therefore dismissed in limine.