' MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, J.--- This Intra-Court Appeal emanates from the judgment dated 8-2- 2011 passed by a learned Single Judge in Chambers in Writ Petition No,993 of 2010/BWP whereby the said petition was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are to the effect that the appellant was appointed on 14-12-2007 as a Laboratory Assistant (BS-5) on contract basis under the development project namely, "Establishment of Seed Testing Laboratories and Rehabilitation of Existing Laboratories," of the Federal Seed Certification and Registration Department, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Government of Pakistan. The appellant's contract was to inure from the date of assumption of charge till 30-6-2009 and was extendable up to the period of project on yearly basis. The project was due to be completed, on 30-6-2009, consequently on 23-5-2009 the petitioner was informed that his services shall stand terminated w.e.f, 30-6-2009. In the meantime the project was transferred from the development to the non-development side along with the posts therein.
Consequently, the employees of the project whose services had been terminated made a representation for adjustment/re-appointment in the new project. Respondent No,1 through letter dated 6-7-2009 advised that the ex-employees may be considered for appointment against any, vacant posts.On merit and in accordance with the codal formalities. The posts in question were advertised, thereafter, and the appellant applied for the same. The appellant, however, was unsuccessful in getting employment. Feeling aggrieved, he filed W.P. No,993 of 2010 whereby he sought a direction that he may be appointed to one of the posts and sought termination of the appointment of respondent No,5. The appellant was, however, unsuccessful and W.P. No,993 of 2010 was dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 8-2-2011.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly argued on the point that the recruitment of respondent No,5 was against the rules and merit. Respondent No,5 is not fit and eligible to be appointed to the post in question. Further contends that respondent No,5 does not belong to the Province of the Punjab but he has been appointed and posted at Bahawalpur. Under the quota system the seat of one Province cannot be carried over to the other Province. Respondent No,5 is under-qualified and the appellant having higher qualification and experience is eminently qualified to be appointed to the post in question. Also contends that the petitioner should have been given employment as directed by respondent No,1 through letter No,F.1-12(1)2007-Plan-I dated 6-7-2009.
4. We have gone through the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant.
We find that after transfer of the project from the development to the non-development side the services of all contract employees were terminated, however, the posts of the project were also transferred. Thereafter, the department advertised the posts in question through various daily newspapers. One of the said advertisements appeared in the daily "Express" Islamabad on 20-9- 2009, a copy whereof is appended to the appeal as Annexure-K. Item No,2 therein relates to the posts in question. In Column No,5 of Item No,2 the quota for the above-mentioned posts on the basis of domicile has been given. According to the said quota one post is reserved against merit, five (5) for the Province of the Punjab, one for Punjab (female candidates), one for Sindh (Rural), one for Sindh (Urban) and one post for the Province of Balochistan.
5. As per the parawise comments submitted by the respondents before the learned Single Judge, respondent No,5 has been appointed against the seats reserved for the Province or the Sindh, in a Federal Government project. As such respondent No,5 can be appointed at a post in any one of the Provinces. Admittedly respondent No,5 belongs to the Province of the Sindh whereas the appellant is domiciled in the Province of the Punjab. The appellant seems to have competed on open merit or on the basis of the seats reserved for the Province of the Punjab. It is not the appellant's case that he should have been appointed on the seats reserved for the Province of the Sindh. We have given an opportunity to the learned counsel to show us as to how respondent No,5 being from the Province of the Sindh should not have been appointed against the quota reserved for that Province or being employed in a Federal Government project he cannot be posted outside his Province of domicile. The learned counsel has been unable to satisfy us. Similarly, the learned counsel has also been unable to show as to what right of the appellant has been infringed or in what manner has the appellant been discriminated against. The learned counsel's contention is, therefore, without force and is accordingly repelled.
6. As to the learned counsel's contention that the appellant should have been appointed on the strength of the directions issued by respondent No,1 through letter No,F.1-12(1)2007-Plan-I dated 6- 7-2009, suffice it to say that the letter is by way of a request and in para 2 states:- "2. A list of ex-employees of the above project is attached with the request that if the qualifications, experience and age limit of the respective persons commensurate with the qualifications, experience and age limit of the vacant posts, if any in a project, the said persons may please be considered for appointment on merit against the vacant posts after completing all codal formalities of fresh recruitment."
It would, therefore, follow that the said letter does not create any vested right. The letter only allows the ex- employees to compete for fresh recruitment on merit and they can only obtain employment if they meet the requisite criteria.
7. The appellant having failed to gain employment on merit has chosen to challenge the appointment of respondent No,5 but he has been unable to show any illegality or irregularity in the said appointment or to establish that he has been discriminated against.
8. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. This appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine being devoid of force.