' NAZIR AHMED BHATTI, J.--The facts of this writ petition are very simple. Bashir Muhammad Khan petitioner was a permanent employee of the Agriculture, Forest and Cooperative Department of the Government of N.-W.F.P. A post of Associate Professor in Entomology Department in NPS-19 was advertised by the N.-W.F.P., Agricultural University on 27-4-1983. The petitioner being qualified for the advertised post applied for the same and was selected to the said post by order dated 17-7- 1984 and was to remain on probation for a period of one year. Since the post of Associate Professor was not vacant on the relevant date, the petitioner was appointed by order dated 31-7-1984 as Associate Professor (BPS-19) with effect from 4-7-1984 on temporary basis against a vacant post of Professor till the post of Associate Professor was created or vacated in the Department of Entomology. Consequent upon his selection as Associate Professor, in the Department of Entomology, N.-W.F.P. Agricultural University the Provincial Government relieved the petitioner from the Agricultural Research Institute, then on deputation to Afghan Refugees as Project Entomologist on permanent basis enabling him to join his new assignment in the aforesaid University with effect from 4-7-1984. This order was made on 8th of July, 1984. Consequently the petitioner joined his post in the Agricultural University. However, by office order dated 2-2-1986 the Synidate, N.-W.F.P.
Agricultural University, on the basis of its meeting of the same day, ordered the repatriation of Mr. Bashir Muhammad Khan, temporary Associate Professor to his parent department (Department of Agriculture N.-W.F.P.) with immediate effect. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the latter order filed this writ petition challenging the same as without lawful authority, without legal justification and being void and inoperative.
2. The respondents filed written statement wherein it was inter alia contended that the petitioner was alleged to have committed some irregularities while he was working in Afghan Refugees Organization and an enquiry was conducted. The Government of N.-W.F.P. Sent that enquiry report to the Agricultural University for taking action against the petitioner. However, the University repatriated the petitioner back to Government for the reason that the latter may take any action which they wanted to take against the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had been permanently relieved from his post under Government and was so transferred to the Agricultural Univeristy where his probationary period had also been successfully completed and he could not be legally repatriated back to Government and the order of the Agricultural University dated 2-2-1986 was illegal and made without lawful authority.
4. We have considered the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner very anxiously but we are unable to agree with him.
5. The petitioner was permanent employee of the Government of N.-W.F.P. Working in Grade-17 when he was selected for initial recruitment as Associate Professor by the N.-W.F.P. Agricultural Univeristy. Two things would flow as a consequence of his permanent employment under Government and initial recruitment on probation under the Agricultural University. Firstly the petitioner being a permanent employee of the Government he was entitled to retain his lien against his post in the Government till he had acquired a permanent lien on any other post and he could not be permanently relieved by the Provincial Government to join his post under the Agricultural University. In this respect Fundamental Rules 12-A, 13 and 14 are quite clear. Secondly, as he was appointed by initial recruitment he was liable, under statute 8 of the N.-W.F.P. Agricultural University Peshawar Service Statutes, 1987, to be on a probation of one year extendable for a further period of two years. Since the petitioner was not confirmed in his post under the Agricultural University after the expiry of initial probationary period of one year, such period stood extended as provided in the aforesaid statute 8. Under the provisions of the aforesaid statute the University was entitled to dispense with his services during the probationary period and actually that is what the University has done. The petitioner was neither confirmed in his service under the Agricultural University nor he could claim any lien against that post. We, therefore, do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order of the Agricultural University made on 2-2-1986. No doubt the order is not properly worded because instead of repatriating the petitioner to Government, the proper order for the Agricultural University should have been to dispense with his service and it was for the petitioner to report to the competent authorities under the Government to claim a post for which his lien was intact. Anyhow we would not make any definite order or any observation as to whether the petitioner should have reported to Government or not because that is not the point involved in the writ petition but we are very clear in our minds that in so far as the right of the Agricultural University to dispense with the services of the petitioner is concerned, the impugned order was passed quite properly by the University Authorities and in accordance with their service statutes.
6. We do not find any merit in this writ petition which is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. C.M. No, 69 of 1986 are also dismissed and the status quo order issued on 11- 2-1986 is also withdrawn. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.