The learned counsel have contended that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Director (BS- 18) in Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (Karachi Building Control Authority) when by order dated 16-10-1994 he was posted on deputation with effect from 10-9-1994 as Project Director in People's Programme under the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development for Islamabad Capital Territory. It is further submitted that the period of deputation was for three years as is evident from the order dated 29-8-1994 passed by the Establishment Division, Cabinet Secretariat, Islamabad. It is vehemently contended that three years' deputation period has not yet elapsed when the impugned order dated 26-12-1996 passed by the Establishment Division has terminated the deputation of the petitioner with a direction to repatriate him to his parent department with immediate effect. It is further stated that by another office order, dated 2nd of January, 1997 by the Ministry of Environmental Local Government and Rural Development, one Asim Khan Goraya has assumed the charge of Project Director, D.S.A.B., Islamabad Capital Territory. By another order, dated 7th of January, 1997 issued by the Ministry of Environmental, Local Government and Rural Development, the petitioner was relieved of his duties as Project Director, District Social Action Board, Islamabad and the leave application of the petitioner was turned down with a direction to apply for leave to his parent department. The learned counsel have placed reliance on Serial No.34, page 340 of the ESTACODE 1989 to contend that the repatriation of the petitioner to his parent department was in violation of law inasmuch as the consent of the lending authority or the petitioner was not obtained before curtailing the deputation period of the petitioner. It is further contended that the impugned orders were also in violation of the instructions of the Federal Government as contained at Serial Nos. 9 and 10 at page 319 of the ESTACODE inasmuch as three months' notice was not given to the petitioner before putting an end to the deputation of the petitioner. Reliance is also placed on the case of Utility Corporation of Pakistan Limited v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others (PLD 1987 SC 447) in which it has been held authoritatively by His Lordship Mr. Justice Nasim Hasan Shah that an authority can only pass a right order and not a wrong order.
2. I am afraid, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner have no force. In the case of Pakistan v. Fazal Rahman Khundkar and another (PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 82), the Inspector-General of Police, Karachi on deputation was repatriated to the Government of East Pakistan before the completion of his deputation- period and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held such repatriation to be valid on the ground that the tenure post did not mean a post that is to be held for a period prescribed and the period could be curtailed by the borrowing authority. The same view was taken in the case of Mehar Gul Muhammad v. Mehran Engineering and Technology University, Nawabshah (1979 SCM R 374) wherein the borrowing authority had repatriated an employee of a statutory body to the parent department prior to the completion of his tenure and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan had held that no employee had a vested right to remain on deputation for full period of tenure. In my opinion, the instructions of ESTACODE are not applicable in respect of employees of statutory bodies and the reliance of the learned counsel appears to be misplaced.
3. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court. This writ petition is dismissed in limine.