' Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Inspector Market Committee, Sahiwal vide order dated 20-8-1995 on purely temporary basis for a period of one year. After the expiry of that period, his tenure was further extended vide order dated 20-8-1996. Now the petitioner's services have been terminated vide order dated 6-3-1997. The petitioner has challenged this order dated 6-3-1997 on the ground that his services could not be terminated unless and until such posts had been filled in on regular basis as per order dated 20-8-1996. That there is every likelihood of his being selected on regular basis and as such, till the regular selection, his services cannot be terminated. In support of his contention, he has referred to Abdul Rashid v.
Administrator, Market Committee, Okara and another (PLD 1980 Lahore 509), Muhammad Nawaz v.
Federation of Pakistan and 61 others (1992 SCMR 1420), The State v. Muhammad Ismail and another (1980 SCMR 268), Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farrukhi (PLD 1969 SC 407), Qazi Abdul Hayee v. Azad Kashmir Government Cooperative Bank Ltd., Muzaffarabad and 2 others (1987 CLC 1266), Mehboob Rabbani v. Government of West Pakistan (PLD 1963 Lahore 53) and Dr. Muhammad Zaman v. Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 3 others 1993 PLC (C.S.) 60.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Inspector, Market Committee, Sahiwal on purely temporary basis vides order dated 20-8-1995. A perusal of this order shows that it contains a stipulation to the effect that his services were liable to be terminated at any time without any notice and assigning any reason thereto even before the expiry of his appointment period of one year. It is fact that order dated 20-8-1996 is in continuation of order dated 20-8-1995. It is, thus, clear that his period was extended till regular appointment subject to condition No, 4 which has already been discussed. Now the services of the petitioner have been terminated vide order dated 6-3-1997 mainly on the ground that these could be terminated without any reason, as provided in the original order of appointment dated 20-8-1995. There is no cavil to the proposition that the petitioner is still a temporary employee and a temporary employee is not entitled to any show- cause notice for terminating his services.
3. So far as the authorities relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, suffice it to say that in none of the said authorities, the question involved in this case has been involved. In PLD 1980 Lahore 509, it was held that section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1973, was not applicable to the employees of Market Committee, who shall be governed by the rules framed under Punjab Agriculture Produce Market (General) Rules, 1979. In 1992 SCMR 1420, it was held that if competent Authority had competently passed the orders regularizing the services of certain officers and the same authority had also confirmed the services of some other officers which orders had taken effect and created valuable rights in favour of the persons mentioned in the said orders, the same could not be cancelled. In the State v. Muhammad Ismail and another (1980 SCMR 268), the facts were that by an earlier order, departmental inquiry had been ordered and later on, the Government revised the said order and accorded sanction for prosecution. It was held that since the earlier order for departmental inquiry had been given effect to and an Inquiry Officer had been appointed in pursuance of such order, so the second order could not be passed. In Qazi Abdul Hayee's case supra, the question involved was about the validity of an order by which extension in service was granted and later on the same order was rescinded. In PLD 1963 Lahore 53 and 1993 PLC (C.S.) 60, the question involved pertained to grant of earned leave as well as of advance increments. A resume oi these facts clearly shows that none of the authorities cited at the Bar is relevant to facts in hand and as such, does not advance the case of the petitioner.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis and he retained this character till 6-3-1997, when the impugned order was passed. Thus, he was not entitled to any show-cause notice and his services could be terminated at any time without assigning any reason as per condition No, 4 attached to his order of appointment dated 20-8-1995. There is nothing on the record to show that he had ever objected to the imposition of condition No, 4 either at the time of accepting order of appointment or joining service. Thus, order dated 6-3-1997 has been passed in accordance with law. There is no force in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.