' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---These two petitions under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 have arisen out of a consolidate judgment dated 14-5-2002 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal in number of identical service appeals.
2. The respondents in these petitions were initially appointed as Field Assistants in the Agricultural Department, Government of Punjab, on ad hoc basis in the year 1988 and subsequently they were regularized w,e,f, 27-6-1989 through the process of departmental selection. The temporary appointment of the respondents in the Water Management Project of the Agricultural Department was liable to be terminated on one month notice and the competent authority terminated them from service, vide order dated 27-7-2001. The respondents having availed the departmental remedies, filed separate appeals before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore and the Tribunal after dilating the matter in detail, allowed the appeals with the following observations:-- "I am not impressed about the ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant that the termination of their services is in violation of principles of natural justice as end to their services were termination simpliciter without any misconduct or inefficiency, on the ground that the project was closed, however, there is substance in the second ground taken by learned counsel. Maximum efforts have been exerted in cases where the project has to be closed to adjust the surplus staff as rendering them jobless would create starvation to so many families. It is the prime duty of the State to ensure that the surplus staff are not rendered homeless in these hard days of inflation, when finding of new jobs is an impossibility. The appeal was adjourned from time to time to enable the respondents to find a way out for adjusting the appellant if not in BS-6, in the posts of Field Assistant against which they were serving, but even against posts in BS-4 or BS-5 but it seems that directions fell on deaf ears and no one bothered to take it seriously. This humanitarian problem needed a positive response, which I may say so with regret is not forthcoming. On the other hand appellants have placed on record a letter by the Director of Agriculture (CRS) Punjab, Lahore dated 17-7-2001 addressed to the Secretary Agriculture, stating that 157 posts of Crop Reporters in BS-6 are lying vacant in the organization but due to ban on fresh recruitment the posts cannot be filled.
However, survey work may be affected due to shortage of staff. The minimum qualification for Crop Reporters were Matric with two years Field Assistant training course form Agriculture Training Institute. The author of the letter alluded of 150 Field Assistants of Water Management Project who have become surplus due to closure of the project and prayed that Field Assistants may be transferred for improvement of crops estimation project in the Punjab lock, stock and barrel. The departmental representatives were not in a position to refute either the contents of the letter or the non-filling of these vacancies".
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that appointment of respondents was purely temporary which was liable to be terminated on one month notice, without assigning any reason, therefore, they had no right to claim their further retention in service after closure of the project for which they were initially appointed. Learned counsel without denying the posts of Crops Reporters in BPS-6 being vacant in the department, submitted that a number of persons already waiting in the surplus pool were already waiting for adjustment, therefore, it was difficult for the department to accommodate the respondents against said posts.
4. Learned counsel for the caveator-respondents has submitted that the private respondents were regular employees of the Agricultural Department, therefore, their termination without notice or assigning any reason on the pretext that they being temporary employees were not entitled to such notice, was in violation of principle of natural justice and would amount to take away their right of earning which is attached with their fundamental right to live.
5. We having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and find that the petitioners, during proceedings before the Tribunal, sought number of adjournments to find out the possibility of adjustment of respondent in BPS-6 in the equivalent posts and there was also a proposal of the adjustment of the respondents and other Field Assistants against the posts of Crop Reporters BPS-6 lying vacant in the organization but due to ban on fresh recruitments, the said posts were not being filled.
6. The adjustment of the respondents against the posts in question as a special case being not impracticable, excuse was of no worth. There is nothing wrong with the impugned judgment to call for interference and further no question of law of public importance is involved in these petitions.
The same are, accordingly, dismissed. Leave is refused.