1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-- Facts of this case briefly stated are that on the recommendation of Selection Committee petitioner was appointed as Senior Scientific Officer (also called as Senior Research Officer) in BPS-18 on 27-8-1984 but after a few months his service was terminated by the order dated 18-4-1985. Petitioner after seeking departmental remedies filed a constitution petition in Baluchistan High Court which was dismissed by the judgment dated 24-9-1986. It is in these circumstances that petitioner then filed the present petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court.
2. Mr. M. Aslam Chishti learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is particularly aggrieved by the most disparaging remarks made by the High Court in Paragraphs 6 and 8 of the Judgment which read as under: "There is y0et another aspect of the matter which appears to be most important to us. The programme was terminated after about a year of its start. In such circumstances how a writ could be issued in favour of the petitioner when the organization under which he was working had been wound up. Moreover the services of the petitioner were purely temporary and could be dispensed with at any time without assigning any reason. On this score as well the petitioner had no grudge.
3. The conduct of the petitioner could also not be worthy of any ordain.
4. Actually he was responsible for the discontinuation of the programme. It was his conduct which compelled the respondents to terminate the programme .........................
5. "It is a pity that such an useful programme initiated with the assistance of foreign aid and so essential for the agricultural progress of this backward province of Baluchistan had to be discontinued mainly due to the misbehaviour, misconduct and inefficiency of the petitioner, still the petitioner has the cheek to come up with his petition."
6. According to learned counsel the aforesaid remarks of the High Court are surcharged with dangerous consequences" and cast damaging aspersion on the petitioner and are prejudicial to his career. Learned counsel pleads that the High Court was not justified in making offending remarks on the mere allegations or respondents when there was no justifiable issue or justifiable basis and the petitioner has therefore been condemned unheard. In this behalf learned counsel further submits that the disparaging observations were extraneous to the matter in issue before the High Court and were totally unnecessary for the decision of the High Court.
7. PLD 1958 S.C. 333, State v. Mujahiduddin Faridi PLD 1959 S.C. 123' and Abdul Hayee Khan v. State 1969 SCM R 412.
8. The submission made in support of the petition deserve consideration. We therefore grant leave to appeal. Security Rs.500.
9. Appeal will be heard on the present record on 19-4-1987. It is open to the parties to file additional documents, if any.