SHAFI-UR-RERMAN, J.-The petitioner seeks leave to appeal under Article 212 of the Constitution.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, arc that the petitioner was a qualified teachers and applied for appointment in a privately managed educational institution, namely Anjuman Sulemania Junior Model School. An appointment letter dated 9-3-1972 was issued to her and. The decision of the Management of the institution, as contained in the minutes and as communicated to her in the appointment letter, was that the appointment was with effect from 8-4-1972 till summer vacation.
The summer vacation started on 8-6-1972 and she took over the appointment on 9-4-1972. 1n the meantime, came to be promulgated M. L. R. 118 and under that the Managers and owners of privately managed colleges were prevented from employing or engaging any person for the purposes of the college or school other than a person who was so employed or engaged immediately before the 15th day of March, 1972. The petitioner's appointment and continuance was disputed by the Government taking over these institutions under this Martial Law Regulation and remained the subject-matter of civil suit and appeal and thereafter was examined in the department itself. At, two stages she was told pointedly that she could not continue as a Government employee on the strength of provisions of M. L. R.
118. For the first time she was so informed in March, 1973 and next on 28-2-1978. The petitioner appealed to the Service Tribunal claiming that she was a regular employee, entitled to be treated as a civil servant and to the arrears of pay, etc. And the directions of the Government dated 28-2-1978 discontinuing her appointment were not in accordance with law applicable to her. The Service Tribunal held that "as the petitioner's appointment was for a limited period, she had no legal right to continue in service after the expiry of the original term of appointment." Hence this appeal.
3. As from the record it appeared that in spite of the Government point of view that she could not be absorbed or taken over under M. L. R. 118 she continued to discharge the duties of a teachers in the institution for a pretty long time, we issued notice and asked for the departmental comments.
We have been informed that she had submitted an application on being first informed in March, 1973 about the discontinuance of her appointment, that she had moved the civil Court and obtained a stay order which with interruptions remained in force upto 11-11-1974. She did not thereafter ever inform that the stay stood vacated though it was on a contest by the Government that it was vacated. It was also pointed out that at the initial stages her own sister was the Headmistress in the institution where she was working and she allowed her to continue working as such.
4. The important question to be determined in the case of the petitioner was one of her entitlement in law to be absorbed on the basis of provision of M. L. R.
118. Admittedly, her appointment was for a fixed period ending with the start of the summer vacation of 1972. There was there after no renewal of the appointment by the competent authority at any stage What has been contended on behalf of the petitioner, is that the Government by continuing her in appointment petitioner is that the Government b continuing her in appointment and utilizing her services should be deem to have appointed her and the same privileges and rights should be available to her as to a civil servant. In the alternative it has been urged that on t basis of quantum meruit she should be compensated for services rendered all these years.
5. The appointment letter which has been placed on record shows the her appointment was not only temporary but it was for a fixed period There was no renewal thereafter by the competent authority. Therefore, M. L. R. 118 would not come to her rescue.
6. As regards the principle of estoppel ; it is a. Question of fact in given situation and we do not find on the record that the competent authority which could have made the appointment further permitted her to continue on the post, of course independent of the Court proceedings and the stay orders passed.
7. There is no question of taw of public importance requiring examination which alone could justify leave to appeal under Article 212 of the Constitution. It will be open to the petitioner, however, to move the Government to seek appropriate relief on compassionate grounds for being compensated for such period as she was allowed to render service as teachers either on the strength of the Courts' order or while the Department itself was re-examining her entitlement to be absorbed in the Department With these observations the petition is dismissed.