1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI J.-The petitioner was originally employed by the 'Central Government in Dams Project as a temporary Diamond Driller. Later on his services were transferred to the WAPDA in connection with the Mangla Dam Project where he served up to 1962 and thereafter went on deputation to Saudi Arabia. ' On 4-2-1965 the petitioner finished his assignment on deputation and returned to Pakistan and sent an arrival report to the Central Government who in turn forwarded it; to the WAPDA. On 20-1-1966-the Chairman, WAPDA, sent an intimation to the petitioner that his services were no longer required and that the authority had decided to terminate his services by paying to him his one month's salary in lieu of notice.
2. Aggrieved by the order of the Chairman WAPDA, the petitioner moved the High Court in writ jurisdiction on the grounds that under Article 177 of the Constitution he was entitled to a show-- cause notice and that being an employee of the Central 'Govern--ment his services could not have been terminated by the Chairman of the WAPDA.
3. The High Court found that when the services of the petitioner were transferred to the WAPDA he being a temporary employee ceased to be a servant of the Central Government and further that as an employee of the WAPDA he was not entitled to the pro--tection of Article 177 of the Constitution. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed from which the petitioner seeks leave to appeal.
4. We have examined the record and find that the assertion by the petitioner that he was an employee under the Central Govern--ment at the relevant time was denied in their written statement the petitioner failed to bring on the record any evidence to contrary. Admittedly the Central Government had extended services of the petitioner from year to year up to 1959 when he was transferred to the WAPDA, but copies of those orders were riot placed on the record to indicate on what terms and conditions the petitioner was serving at the time. Even the order of the, transfer of the petitioner to the WAPDA was not exhibited. In the circumstances the High Court was right in concluding that the petitioner was at the relevant time an employee of the WAPDA which was further vouched by Exh. R/3 copy of the memorandum issued by the Chief Engineer, Mangla Dam Project, dated the 7th March 1963. Dealing with the status of the employee similar to the petitioner it was pointed out in the memorandum that all staff' recruited by the Central Government exclusively for Mangla Dam Project prior to the transfer of the Project to the Authority were to be treated as WAPDA employees. This was in consonance with the provisions of section 9-A of the West Pakistan WAPDA Act, 1958. Thus, if in 1959 the petitioner was serving under the Central Government exclusively in connection with the Mangla Dam Project which on the facts appears to be the correct position he on transfer to the Authority ceased to be an employee of the Central Government.
5. It is not disputed by the learned counsel that as an employee of the WAPDA the petitioner was not entitled to the protection of Article 177 of the Constitution. The petition is thus without any merit and is dismissed.