' RIAZ AHMED KHAN, J.--- This order is directed to dispose of Writ Petition No, 5314 of 2010.
2. Facts constituting the background of present writ petition are that the petitioner Raja Shahid Mehmood was appointed as Research Officer (BPS-17) on contract basis in April, 2005 in Pakistan Oil Seeds Development Board. He has been working on the said post till date. On 20-11-2009, Pakistan Oil Seeds Development Board advertised the post of Research Officer. The petitioner as well as two other persons namely Nasir Mehmood and Khurram Shahzad applied for the post. The said two persons were appointed by the respondents. However, the petitioner challenged the appointment of two persons in a writ petition claiming therein that he had better qualification and experience and that the said two persons did not have the required qualification. The said writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the respondents to look into the grievance of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, no action was taken on the orders of this Court, so a second writ petition was filed which was also disposed of with the direction to the Secretary, MinFA, Government of Pakistan to ensure compliance of the order of this Court in the earlier petition. The petitioner, thereafter, also field a contempt application. However, the appointments of those two persons as Planning and Progressing, and Research Officer were cancelled vide letter dated 7-12- 2010. Thereafter, the said posts were ordered to be re-advertised. The petitioner, thus, filed the present Writ Petition.
2. The case of the petitioner is that since he was appointed as Research Officer in the year, 2005 though on contract basis yet his appointment is required to be regularized as he had been on the same post without any break for a long time The second contention of the petitioner is that if his appointment is not regularized then in the alternative he is entitled to be appointed on the same post because along with two other persons he had also applied for the said post. According to merit list of the respondents, he was third and since the appointments of two other person have been cancelled, so he being third in the merit list is entitled to be appointed on the said post.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was initially appointed on the contract basis for two years in the year, 2005 but on the completion of contract period, his contract was extended and in the same manner, the petitioner is still in service. Learned counsel further contended that the respondents cannot be permitted to, keep on extending the contract and service of the petitioner is required to be regularized with effect from the date he joined the service.
Learned counsel further contended that in the alternative, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed on the basis of being third in the merit list as stated earlier.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner being contract employee cannot invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The writ itself is incompetent, no vested right of the petitioner has been infringed and that the post has been properly re-advertised.
6. In the present case, the petitioner is admittedly a contract employee. This is not his case that in, the same department other employees on similar posts have been regularized and he has been denied the same treatment. The petitioner being a contract employee, without any discrimination meted out to him is asking for regularization of his service which is not possible as the same is not his vested right.
7. The second contention of the petitioner is that since he was being third in the earlier list of candidates and other two persons have been removed, so he is entitled to be appointed, is also not correct. The reason is that even if it is presumed that in the earlier list he was third, the same would not create a vested right for him. Furthermore, appointment without advertising the post is violative of fundamental rights. The order of the department regarding advertising the post is, therefore, in, accordance with law.
8. Finding no force in this Writ Petition, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.