EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal has arisen out of the judgment dated 21.08.2017 of the Sindh High Court, Karachi; whereby the learned Single Judge in its Chambers dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner.
2. The main stand of the learned Sr. ASC appearing on behalf of the petitioner was that petitioner has been appointed by promotion by the competent authority, therefore, his appointment could not be annulled on any pretext whatsoever and that the High Court without attending to the relevant provision of law and the rules erred in dismissing his petition.
ASC appearing on behalf of respondents No, 2 and 3 contended that petitioner was repatriated pursuant to the judgment of this Court; that he has been shifting his stand from time to time as in the first instance he claimed to have been appointed by initial recruitment and then by promotion and that whatever the case may be such issue after his repatriation to his parent department pursuant to the judgments of this Court rendered in the cases of Contempt proceedings against the Chief Secretary Sindh and others (2013 SCM R 1752) and Ali Azhar Khan Baloch, v. Province of Sindh (2015 SCM R 456) cannot be decided through any other mode except the one laid in the judgments mentioned above.
4. We have gone through the record carefully and considered the submissions of the learned Sr.
ASC for the petitioner as well as learned ASC appearing on behalf of respondents No, 2 and 3.
The record reveals that petitioner was repatriated pursuant to the judgments of this Court rendered in the cases of Contempt proceedings against the Chief Secretary Sindh and others and Ali Azhar Khan Baloch v. Province of Sindh (supra). On his repatriation, his stand was that he was appointed in terms of Section 14(2) of the Sindh Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Ordinance VI of 1992 but when it transpired that he was not appointed by initial recruitment he shifted his stand by stating that he was appointed by promotion. We repeatedly asked him to refer to the rules which deal with' appointment by promotion, but he could not refer to any. When this being the case, we do not think the impugned judgment suffers from any infirmity which could call for its annulment.
6. For the reason discussed above, this petition being without merit is dismissed and the leave asked for is refused. However, nothing observed herein would prejudice the case of the petitioner he has set up in another petition filed in this Court vis-a-vis of his repatriation.