' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of High Court of Balochistan, dated 28-7-1991, whereby C.P. No, 38/89 filed by the petitioner to challenge his dismissal from service was dismissed.
2. The petitioner, who was originally appointed as Cashier in the Divisional Cooperative Bank Limited, Quetta, was promoted as Manager in the Bank on 1-8-1973. As a result of promulgation of Federal Bank for Cooperative and Regulation of Cooperative Banking Ordinance, 1976, the Divisional Cooperative Bank was dissolved with the result the petitioner was declared surplus and his services were terminated. The petitioner first challenged his termination of service before the Appellate Authority and then before the High Court of Balochistan in a Constitutional petition without any success. However, the High Court, while dismissing his earlier Constitution Petition No,19 of 1985 made the following observation:-- "Before parting with the above discussion, we may observe that the respondent No,2 has already taken into service a number of ex-employees of the defunct-Bank and it will L proper to consider the petitioner's case dispassionately, which will eliminate the possibility of further litigaiton."
3. The petitioner was reinstated in service in view of the above observation of the High Court on 1-1- 1986. The petitioner was later suspended from service on 14-7-1987 and he once again challenged his suspension order in C.P. No,133/1987 which was allowed by the High Court on 26-6-1988 and he was reinstated in service on 4-8-1988. He was, however, dismissed from service on the same day i.e, 4-8-1988 with effect from 1-3-1986. The petitioner again filed C.P. No, 38/1989 to challenge his dismissal from service but the High Court dismissed the petition on the sole ground that relationship of the petitioner and respondent No,3 was governed by the principles of Master and Servant and as such remedy by way of petition under Article 199 of the Constitution was not available in the case. The petitioner, who is appearing in person, contends that his dismissal from service is not on account of any independent action of the Management of respondent No,3, but it was on account of directions of the Provincial Government. In support of his contention, the petitioner referred to his suspension order dated 14-7-1987 passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and contended that since his dismissal from service had taken place as a result of the order of the Government, he was entitled to maintain the Constitution petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. The contention requires detailed examination and leave to appeal is, accordingly, granted.