1. Zafar Baig petitioner has filed this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 with a view to challenging a communication received by him from respondent Headmaster, Government High School, Chak No.423/JB, Toba Tek Singh, which reads as under:-- "Memo. No.64, dated 27-2-1989.
2. Subject: Relieving chit due to cancellation of appointment orders.
3. "Ref.: D.E.O. T.T. Singh Order No3W0-3131/E, dated 26-2-1989.
4. In compliance with the D.E.O. T.T. Singh Order referred above you are hereby relieved from your duty today the 27th of February, 1989 (F.N.) with immediate effect."
5. His case is that he was appointed as a Junior Clerk in BS-5 and was posted at Government High School Chak No.423/JB vide Appointment Order No.1/1 SA (89)MS-1815, dated 23-1-1989. He joined service at the place of his posting on 30-1-1989. It was during the month of February, 1989 that he was surprised to learn that in compliance with the telephonic orders of the Additional Secretary (I&C), Government of the Punjab, S&GAD, Lahore, respondent No.4 herein, the Director of Education (S), Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad/respondent No. l had ordered termination of his services. The respondent Additional Secretary (I & C)'s letter No. U.S. (Liaison) (I&C)1-52/89 on the subject of: "Irregularities in Appointments" addressed to all Members, Board of Revenue, Punjab, the Chairman, Planning and Development Board, Punjab, and all Administrative Secretaries, Government of the Punjab is dated 27-2-1989 and its copy is available at Annex-C. According to the petitioner, the questions similar to the one which has been made the subject-matter of the instant petition by him were resolved by this Court in favour of the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 6167/89, 6599/89 3340/90,2333/90 and 6576/90 as also Writ Petition No. 2060/89 and they were restored to their service positions in the concerned Departments. The impugned orders were specifically set aside by this Court in Writ Petitions Nos.2340 and 3778 of 1990 etc. The petitioner is also entitled to be put back to work as Junior Clerk. It is also averred that "-----as per the appointment order of the petitioner, his service was only liable to termination as per the Punjab Civil Servants Rules and certainly could not be cancelled in a hasty, illegal, mala fide and without lawful authority manner."
6. The petitioner had brought the question about his reinstatement into service to the notice of the high-ups in the past, "...As well as the respondents but the respondents at all times went on putting off the matter by one or the other pretext, and at last, the petitioner is left with no' option for redress of his grievances other than craving the transcendental jurisdiction of this august Court by way of filing the instant Constitutional petition, being the last resort and the only adequate, equitable and proficient remedy available to him under the law; especially. When he has been throughout making very rigorous, restless and strenuous exertions throughout, and has not wasted even a single minute for getting himself reinstated and getting the impugned orders of termination of his services brushed aside".
2. The pleas raised in this petition has been reiterated by the learned counsel for the petitioner but he has failed to explain the obvious laches on his part to make a move in that behalf throughout the past more than 4-1/2 years. The pleadings in para. 5 of the. Petition to the effect ,that, the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for in this petition "...Especially when he has been throughout making very rigorous, restless and strenuous exertions throughout ...." and he has not wasted even a single minute for getting himself reinstated in service, are not supported by any material on the record. Be that as it may, the grievance of the petitioner ex facie relates to terms and conditions of his service and the bar created under Article 212 of the Constitution about laying a challenge to such an order before this Court, is squarely attracted here. The remedy of the petitioner, if at all, lay in making a challenge to the impugned order dated 27-2-1989 before the Departmental Authorities under section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act (No. VIII of 1974) and/or under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act (No. IX of 1974). The instant petition is not maintainable here and is, liable to be dismissed in limine on that ground alone. Order accordingly.