' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---By this common judgment, we propose to decide Civil Petitions Nos.146-L, 150-L, 1731-L and Cr1. Orig. 1 and 2L of 2000, as questions of law and facts are identical in all of them.
2. The petitioners in Civil Petitions Nos.146-L and 150-L of 2000 were appointed on ad hoc basis on 8-5-1995 in the service of the respondent- board after the posts had been advertised for public information. Subsequently, a Committee consisting of high officers regularized the appointments of the said petitioners on 28-8-1995 and they were appointed on regular basis on the said date. The order of their appointment reproduced in extenso is as under:- "Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad.
' No .257/ES/ESTT. Dated 28-8-1995 ' Office Order ' The Board in its meeting held on 24-8-1995, approved the appointment of Mr. Muneer Hussain son of Allah Ditta working on ad hoc basis as Junior Clerk in BPS-5 (1400-66-2390) plus usual allowance as admissible under the Rules on regular basis with effect from 1-9-1995 with the following terms and conditions:--
(i) Your services are liable to be terminated without assigning any reason after giving you due notice as required under the Regulations of the Board, which is as under:--
(a) 5 years' service or more. 90 days
(b) 1 year's service or more 30 days but less than 5 years.
(c) 6 months' service or more 15 days but less than 1 year.
(d) Less than 6 months' service 7 days provided that no notice will be necessary if you are found to have mutilated, erased or tampered with the office record.
(ii) You will be deemed to be on probation for a period of two years commencing from the date of joining service, which shall be extendable in accordance with the Service Regulations.
(iii) You will not take part in the activities which are against the office discipline and which may cause hindrance in the office work. Your service will be terminable if your antecedents are reported unsatisfactory by the District Police/Special Branch of Police. Lahore.
(iv) In case you wish to resign the post, you will have to give either due notice or deposit pay for period in lieu thereof as required under the Regulations of the Board mentioned above.
(v) The appointment offer is subject to the verification of documents.
(Sd.)
Secretary."
3. On 17-4-1996, petitioners' services were terminated in pursuance of the terms and conditions of their service as contained in the order of their appointment, dated 28-8-1995 in lieu of the notice which was challenged through Constitutional Petitions before the Lahore High Court which have been dismissed by the learned Judge in Chamber of the High Court through the impugned judgment, dated 12-1-2000, against which leave to appeal has been sought.
4. In Civil Petition No,1731-L of 2000, the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis for six months on 8-5-1995. Their appointments were not made on regular basis as was done in the case of the other petitioners in Civil Petitions. Nos.146-L and 150-L of 2000. On 17-4-1996, their services were terminated legality of which was also challenged in the Constitutional Petition before the Lahore High Court which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment, dated 22-6-2000, against which also leave to appeal has been sought.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that services of petitioners in Civil Petitions No,146- L and 150-L of 2000 could not be terminated summarily by issuing them mere notice of termination of their service for their earlier appointment on ad hoc basis had been regularized and they had become the permanent employees of the Board. We are afraid, the contention on the bare reading of their appointment order after regularization has no force. The order through which they were appointed on regular basis on 28-8-1995 has been reproduced above which contained terms and conditions of their service which provided that their services could be terminated by issuing them notice. It was also provided that they would remain on probation for two years, as such, their services could be terminated before the expiry of period of probation if the same were according to the appointing authority/competent authority, not satisfactory. Regulation No,12(2) of the Service Regulations of the Employees of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad, is as follows:-- "On or before the conclusion of the period of probation of any employee, the Appointing Authority may either confirm such employee with effect from the date of appointment or if his work or conduct has, in its opinion, not been satisfactory, it may dispense with his service, if he has been recruited by direct appointment or may revert him to his former post, if he has been recruited otherwise, or, it may extend the period of probation: ' Provided that a permanent employee of the Board, if selected for direct recruitment to a higher post shall retain his lien on his former post or on the post against which he is confirmed (in absentia on promotion by seniority) till he is made permanent on the post to which he is recruited direct."
' The order of termination of the service of the petitioners in these two petitions, therefore, was perfectly in accordance with their terms and conditions of service and also Regulation No,12(2) of the said Regulations of the Board, therefore, no legal exception can be taken to the same.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue that Regulation No,12(2) of the Regulations provided that services of a probationer could be terminated before the expiry of period of probation if his performance was not satisfactory and in these cases, the petitioners were not heard before the issuance of notice to them of termination of service to explain their position in the matter of satisfactory service. This argument has also no force. The petitioners were not dismissed from service with a stigma. It was a case of termination of service simpliciter before the expiry of period of probation by the Competent Authority. In such a case, it was not necessary to hear them.
The termination of their service having been made in accordance with the terms and conditions of service as contained in their order of appointment and they having accepted the same, cannot now turn around and object if the said terms and conditions had been invoked.
7. In the case of petitioners in Civil Petition No,1731-L of 2000, no objection can be taken by them as they had not been even appointed on regular basis. Ad hoc appointment against a post is only for a fixed period and the appointee has no vested right to claim continuation in service, therefore, they also had no vested right to challenge the act of termination of their service.
8. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merits in these petitions which are accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused. Criminal Original Nos.1-L and 2-L of 2000, are also dismissed, as in the circumstances of the case, we do not feel inclined in the interest of justice to proceed against the respondents.
9. Before parting with the judgment, we direct that process for filing the vacancies by issuing the advertisement should be commenced within one month from today and relaxation as to upper limit of age should be given to the petitioners for the period they remained in service so that they may not be prejudiced if they want to seek appointment in the fresh process.