The above captioned writ petition was filed under Section 44 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, through which the following prayer was made:-- "It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that by allowing this petition appropriate writ may kindly be issued to the following effect:--
(i) Prohibiting the respondents to discontinue the adhoc appointment of the petitioner until and unless the post held by the petitioner is filled on regular basis after selection on merit under law/rules.
(ii) Directing the respondents to approve the proposal of extension of adhoc appointment contained in the summary dated 05.01.2011 moved by Secretary Local Govt. Board.
(iii) Any other relief to which the petitioner is entitled to may also graciously be granted alongwith the costs".
2. Petitioner stated in the petition that he was appointed as Chief Officer B-17 in the Local Govt.
Department on adhoc basis vide Order No, 4723-29 dated 17.07.2009. Thereafter, extensions were made -regarding his adhoc appointment. The process for permanent appointment against the said post could not be initiated, so, Secretary Local Govt. Board has moved a summary for further extension of adhoc appointment of the petitioner but the respondents are bent upon to terminate the adhoc appointment of the petitioner to fill up the aforesaid post for political consideration. The petitioner has prayed to issue a writ in the manner mentioned above.
3. Notices were issued to the respondents. Respondent No, 4 submitted parawise comments and stated that no proposal for termination of adhoc appointment of the petitioner was under consideration. Petitioner has got no locus-standi to file this writ petition on the basis of adhoc appointment. Respondent No, 4 prayed to dismiss the writ petition alongwith the interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioner.
4. Arguments were heard. The learned Counsel for the parties advanced their arguments and only repeated their versions taken in the ' pleadings, which require no need to produce their arguments in black and white.
5. After hearing the arguments, I have gone through the record available minutely. It has been admitted through the record that petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis. It has been mentioned in the appointment order of the petitioner that the appointment is purely on adhoc basis and for six months and competent authority can terminate this adhoc appointment without issuing any notice at any time. The same conditions are mentioned in all of the orders regarding the extension of the basic order of adhoc appointment. It is a settled principle of law that adhoc appointment creates no right and such like officer does not come in the ambit of a civil servant. So, petitioner has got no locus-standi to file a writ petition on the basis of his adhoc appointment.
Having in view the circumstances indicated above, this writ petition stands dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.