MIAN NAZIR AKHTAR, J.- The petitioner was initially appointed on 2.6.1990 as a telephone operator against a leave vacancy (of Gulzar Ahmad) purely on temporary basis and by way of stop gap arrangement. The appointment was liable to be terminated without notice or assigning any reason. When the said appointment came to an end, he was again appointed on 3-9-91 against a temporary vacancy of Mrs. Bushra Latif. Therefore he was appointed on 10. 3. 92 against a leave vacancy of Mrs Zeenat for two months. In the like manner he was appointed against leave vacancies from time to time till 13-9-93. The petitioner's learned counsel submits that the General Manager Telephones had issued a letter dated 12.1.1992 for regularisation of ad hoc/temporary appointees and even the persons- appointed against leave vacancies were given the opportunity to appear in the interview for selection under the rules The petitioner's grievance is that be appeared in the interview but was wrongly left out and that some junior persons with lesser qualification were appointed.
3. According to the record, the petitioner was appointed as a Telephone Operator against leave vacancy. This was a mere concession shown to him and on the basis of his causal appointment he could not claim seniority as against the ad hoc or temporary appointees. It was also an act of concession to allow the persons working against leave vacancies to appear in the interview for appointment against vacant posts. The competent authority did not find the petitioner to be suitable for regular appointment as a Telephone Operator. There is nothing to show that the authority has acted in violation of the relevant rales or that any right possessed by the petitioner has been infringed.
3. For the foregoing reasons the petition fails and is dismissed in limine.