1. The titled writ petition has been addressed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir interim Constitution 1974, seeking aid this Court by making a specific prayer reproduced infra: In view of above mentioned submissions it is, therefore; very humbly prayed on behalf of the petitioner that by accepting the instant writ petition following relief may kindly be allowed issuing appropriate writs:-
(i) That the respondents be directed to adjust the petitioner against the post of Attendant BHU Harighel District. Bagh which, is going to be vacant due to retirement of Muhammad Yaseen Khan Attendant on the recommendations of the Medical Board.
(ii) That the respondents. be directed/ordered to adjust the petitioner on permanent basic against any post of equal grade.
(iii) That the -respondents be restrained from cancelling: revoking or amending the appointment order of the petitioner."
2. The summary of the case is that the petitioner is 1st Class State Subject, who hails from District Bagli. It is stated that initially through order dated 23.01.2010, the petitioner was appointed as Sweeper B-1, on temporary basis. However, upon recommendations of departmental selection committee through order dated 20.02.2012, he was appointed as Sanitary Assistant B-01, who performed his duties till 20.05.2016 and later on he became surplus and upon protest he was again adjusted. It is averred that from May 2016 to May 2020, many posts of B-01, of different cadres by ignoring the petitioner have been filled in by the Respondent No. 2, on regular basis, hence, the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the parties argued- the case as per their respective pleadings.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of writ petition as well as appended documents thereto with utmost care.
5. When the factual scenario pro and contra in the back ground of Article 44 of the Interim Constitution, 1974, is the writ petition is not maintainable for the reason that no illegality has been pointed out by the petitioner. Temporary appointment does not create any legal or vested right quo permanence in service or permanent appointment.
6. Mode of permanent appointment has already been envisaged and inducated in relevant laws and endorsed by the superior Courts through a eham of precedents vertical as well as horizontal. All the posts/slots in the hirerachy of departments taking financial breath from national exchequer are liable to advertised first and thereafter to be filled in by fair and transparent selection process. The process ibid cannot be terminated/bypassed and deviated in order to extent benefit to the petitioner. No back door entry in service can be approved and allowed. Law must have to take its own course.
7. Case law cited by the petitioner is distinguishable and not attracted in the instant matter as per claim of the petitioner, hence, citations irrelevant.
8. Thus in this sense and backdrop of the above discussion adopting the doctrine of limine control the instant writ petition is dismissed in limine.