' NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESHI, J. --- Through the instant Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for: (i) setting aside the impugned notification dated 12.01.2015 issued by respondent No, 1, (ii) issuance of direction to respondent No, 1 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment by transfer/induction and (iii) suspension of impugned notifications dated 12.01.2015 till final disposal of the instant writ petition.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 17th March, 1990, the Petitioner was appointed as Agriculture Officer (BPS-17) in the Government of Balochistan, Agriculture & Cooperative Department. On 1st December, 2009, the petitioner was transferred and posted as Section Officer (BPS-18) in Planning and Development Division, Islamabad on deputation basis for a period of three years. The petitioner assumed the charge of his duty on 11th January, 2010 in the said Division. The petitioner's posting was further extended for a period of two years i,e, from 11.01.2013 to 10.01.2015 by respondent No,
2. The petitioner was repatriated to his parent Department vide respondent No, 1 notification dated 12.01.2015. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned notification dated 12.01.2015 is absolutely illegal and unlawful; that the respondent No, 2 vide letter dated 14th January, 2015 has clearly stated that the Ministry is facing acute shortage of Section Officers; that respondent No, 2 has pointed out that it is difficult for Ministry of Planning, Development & Reform to relieve/ repatriate the petitioner and requested the respondent No, 1 to take up the matter with competent authority to cancel/withdraw the impugned Notification dated 12th January, 2015 in relaxation of rules/deputation policy; that. The impugned notification is discriminatory and the same has been passed in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan; that the officers similarly placed with the petitioner were appointed by transfer/ induction in OMG whereas, the petitioner being equally qualified, was ignored from consideration for no lawful justification whatsoever; that the impugned notification is corum-non-judice, non-existent in the eye of law, having no adverse consequences against the vested rig of the petitioner for appointment by transfer/induction, which is pending for more than three years; that there is no alternate efficacious and speedy remedy available to the petitioner except to file the instant writ petition.
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner is a deputationst who was initially appointed on deputation vide order dated 11.01.2010 in Planning and Development Division, Islamabad for a term of three years. The period of deputation was till 10.01.2013 whereas, vide letter dated 17.01.2013, it was further extended for two years i,e, from 11.01.2013 to 10.01.2015. On 10.01.2015 extended period of two years was expired, hence, vide notification dated 12.01.2014, the petitioner was repatriated to his parent Department by Establishment Division. After two days of his notification dated 12.01.2015 a request by Planning Commission was made to the Establishment Division for withdrawal of the impugned notification in relaxation of rules in deputation policy. Since period of deputation expired on 10.01.2015 it was not extended further as a result repatriation order vide notification dated 12.01.2015 was passed. After issuance of such notification a request for withdrawal was issued. This Court neither can act as Borrowing or Lending Department nor Establishment Division for the purpose of extension of deputation period. The deputationist otherwise, has no right to be retained in the department on his choice even before expiry of deputation after someone is repatriated according to the policy of the Government he should follow such directions of the law. The deputationist therefore, cannot retain in such department as his right. Therefore, the prayer sought in the instant writ petition is contrary to the scage boundary of law.
6. So far concerned of issuance of direction to the respondent No, 1 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment, it appears to be reasonable. The respondent No, 1 may consider his case sympathetically.