' AJMAL MIAN, ACTG., C.J.---By this common order, we intend to dispose of the above petitions which are directed against the judgment dated 3-10-1997 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, passed in Appeals mentioned at Serial Nos.1 to 50 in the title of the above judgment, which had been admitted to regular hearing, and Appeals at Serial Nos.51 to 201, which were at the stage of preliminary hearing, dismissing the same.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioners were inched into service in the year 1996 in the Intelligence Bureau, hereinafter referred to as the 1.B., in different Pay Scales i.e, as Assistant Sub-Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors, Inspectors and Assistant Directors. Their Services were terminated within the probationary period of one year in or about February, 1997, without assigning any reason. The petitioners filed aforesaid appeals before the Tribunal, out of which 50 were admitted to regular hearing and the remaining appeals were at the preliminary stage of hearing as observed hereinabove.The learned Tribunal dismissed the aforementioned appeals through the above common judgment inter alia for the following reasons:-
(i) That the above posts were created for a period of one year;
(ii) That the appointments were made not on the basis of merit but on the recommendations of the Ministers and other Government functionaries en bloc';
(iii) That since the petitioners' services were terminated during probationary period, they had no justiciable grievance to agitate before this Court in view of the judgments of this Court inter alia in the case of Syed Tathir Hussain Shirazi v. The Governor of the Punjab and others (1990 SCM R 1510), in the case of Amir Ahmed v. Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and another (1993 SCM R 114) and in the case of Munawar Khan v. Niaz Muhammad and 7 others (1993 SCM R 1287).
' The petitioners have, therefore, filed the above petitions for leave to appeal.
3. We have heard M/s Rana Abdul Rahim Khan, Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Kh. Muhammad Farooq, Mr. Talat Farooq Shami, Abdul Ghafoor Mangi and M.S. Khattak on behalf of the petitioners and the petitioners in person in Civil Petitions Nos. 1359 of 1997, 1384 of 1997 and 1386 of 1997. Kh.
Muhammad Farooq has also argued Civil Petition No,1342 of 1997 on behalf of Mr. Munir Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the Government.
4. We are inclined to grant leave to consider the following questions:--
(i) Whether the petitioners who were inducted as Assistant Directors in the I.B. Were appointed against permanent posts or against temporary posts created for a period of one year (i.e, the petitioners in Civil Petitions Nos. 1330, 1334, 1335, 1342, 1328, 1329, 1336, 1344 and 1345 of 1997)?
(ii) Whether at the time of termination of services of the Assistant Directors on the ground that they were on probation, there existed 79 vacancies of permanent Assistant Directors or any. If so, what is its effect?
(iii) What is the effect of the Public Notice published in the newspapers in which it was not disclosed that the above posts were temporary?
(iv) Whether the petitioners who were inducted as Assistant Sub-Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors were appointed against temporary posts and if so, what is its effect?
(v) Whether any permanent vacancies existed at the time the termination notice was served an the posts of Assistant Sub-Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors, if so, What is its effect?
(vi) What is the effect of the words "on regular basis" used in some of the appointment notifications?
(vii) Whether the petitioners were entitled to a show-cause notice before passing of the termination orders in terms of section 11(1) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
(viii) Whether the termination orders should have contained the reasons for termination of services of the petitioners in view of section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (incorporated by Act XI of 1997 with effect from 2-6-1997)?
' Leave is, accordingly, granted. However, we are not inclined to grant any stay order but would order that the appeals arising out of the above petitions may be fixed for regular hearing at an early date.