' TARIQ MAHMOOD, J.---Facts, in brief, are that petitioner is doctor by profession. He was posted as Medical Officer, Basic Health Unit, Rahi Nigora, District Panjgoor. It appears that he had already taken admission in Civil Hospital, Karachi, for post-graduation in anesthesiology but came to know that there were several training programmes under 11 family health project of Government of Balochistan, and therefore, submitted application on 20th June, 1997, to worthy Chief Minister and requested that he be sent on deputation for two years under said programme for above post- graduation. His application was accepted and Government of Balochistan was pleased to provisionally nominate petitioner for MCPS (anesthesia) for a period of nine months at Civil Hospital Karachi. It would be advantageous to reproduce hereinabelow relevant conditions of his nomination:-- "1. He will draw his salary during the period of his training course against his original post of M.O.BHU Rahi Nigora Panjgoor.
2. .... . .
3. He will be entitled for TA/DA as admissible under the rules.
4. He will be entitled to house rent allowance as admissible under the rules subject to the production of certificate from the M.S of the Hospital to the effect that the officer has not been provided with any hostel/government residential accommodation.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9. If he leaves the course incomplete he will have to refund the amount spent by the Government.
On him towards his pay/T.A. Etc., during the period of his deputation/training course he will not be considered for any future degree/diploma postgraduate course."
' It is the case of petitioner that as no accommodation was provided to him; therefore, he stayed in a hotel for continuous period of nine months. And accordingly submitted his TA/DA bill alongwith hotel charges for Rs,3,26,950 but the Project Director refused to grant as according to him, he was only entitled to house rent allowance as per condition No,4 of his nomination but referred the matter for necessary guidance to Secretary Health. However, competent authority was -pleased to allow him daily allowance for ninety days at the rate of Rs,300 per day and hotel charges at the rate of Rs,900 per night, despite the fact that as per Finance Department Circular during training within the country daily allowance can be allowed upto 30 days and hotel charges will not be admissible. It further appears that subsequently his deputation period was extended for another fifteen months vide letter, dated 17th September, 1998 it is the case of petitioner that he had completed his post-graduation and accordingly submitted his DA and hotel charges bill for the whole period after adjustment of Rs,1,12,230 already paid. It is also his case that department has refused to grant on the ground of its admissibility and that project has since been closed. Hence this Constitutional petition, and following relief was claimed:-- "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept the petition, in following terms:--
(a) Declaring that the action of the respondents in refusing to provide the petitioner, amount of TA/DA for a period of two years, when admittedly he resided in a hotel and duly vouchers were submitted along with the bills, despite availability of funds, is totally illegal, improper and without lawful authority and jurisdiction vested in them.
(b) Directing the respondents to clear and make payment of the bills submitted by petitioner, pertaining to his residing in a hotel at Karachi, during the tenure of his course.
(c) Any other relief deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be awarded along with the cost of petition, in the interest of justice."
' Pre-admission notice was given to official respondents who have filed the parawise comments.
' We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Advocate-General in support of their respective contentions.
It is the stand of official respondents that daily allowance bill/hotel charges has been declined inter alia on the ground that the same is not admissible as per instructions issued on the subject i,e,", admissibility of Daily Allowance to the Government servant during training within the contrary"; he has already received the amount in excess; he has also not yet produced the diploma of MCPS (Anesthesia Course) for which he was nominated by the Government and that the project has already been closed and the balance amount of World Bank has been refunded, and therefore, even otherwise there is no amount available with the Government from where amount could be paid.
' It may be seen that as per terms and condition of his nomination/deputation order petitioner was entitled to house rent allowance as admissible under the rules subject to the production of certificate from the Medical Superintendent of the hospital, to the effect that the officer has not been provided with any hostel/government residential accommodation. Accordingly ever if the petitioner was not provided any hostel/ Government residential accommodation, he was only entitled to house rent allowance, but by no stretch of imagination he could claim daily allowance and hotel charges. Further though Clause (3) speaks about entitlement of petitioner to claim TA/DA as permissible under the rules and the circular titled as "Admissibility of daily allowance to the Government servant during training period within the State," was relevant, as his stay was for more than two years, therefor. He was governed by special clause (4) of his nomination order. And clause (3) of his nomination order was relevant for the purpose of joining course at Karachi from his place of posting and back but by no stretch of imagination, petitioner under the terms of his nomination could claim daily allowance and hotel bill for good about more than two years. Besides a mandamus against the Government can be issued only in case of clear violation of something having "force of law." Learned counsel for petitioner has not been able to show any rule on the basis whereof he could claim daily allowance/hotel charges for such a long period. Learned Advocate-General, in this behalf place reliance on case reported in PLD 1962 SC 367 and it was held as under:-- "The power of issuing of mandamus to the Government is one which a Court, in the exercise of high responsibility, would not exercise unless it was satisfied that the action (or inaction) is clearly in violation of something having the force of law. In the present case, the directions issued and the 'principle' followed from time to time exhibit fluidity in marked degree, and it is impossible for the Court to select any one of them for the purpose of issuing an irresistible direction to the Government to act in a particular way. This is the more so as the matter it expressly stated to be under the ' active consideration' of the Government, whose power to vary its previous orders is undoubted."
' The petition is misconceived, and therefore, dismissed in limine.