' The petitioner, who was Medical Officer of respondent, employed on ad hoc basis for fixed term, through this Constitutional petition, has assailed the impugned letter dated 18-2-2003 issued by the respondent, whereby the petitioner's request for further extension in service and allotment of a plot in the respondent's Society, has been declined and he has been again informed that his contract period including three months extension, will end on 28-2-2003.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis, as Medical Officer of Medical Centre of respondent Authority for fixed term and period of his ad hoc services was regularly extended and by now he has completed five years of service and therefore he has acquired the right to be regularized in service and having acquired the status of a permanent employee and having served the respondent Authority, for more than five years, he has the right to be allotted a plot in the residential Society of the respondent. Reference in this regard has been made to Para-C of the Minutes of Meeting dated 18-2-2002, held by the respondent, wherein it was recommended that Ex-Defence Officers be allotted Service Residential Plots after completion of five years of their services as against 9 years of service provided for civilians.
3. The learned counsel representing the respondent Authority while vehemently opposing the petition has submitted that the petitioner has failed to disclose any vested right, he was employed on ad hoc basis for fixed term and the said term was extended from time to time, he never acquired the status of a regular/permanent employee and he has failed to show any entitlement for the allotment of a plot in respondent Housing Society. It has also been argued that the petitioner has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction without invoking the alternate remedies of an appeal to the Administrator of respondent Authority and thereafter a second appeal to the Executive Board of respondent Authority, which is headed by Corps. Commander Lahore. It has also been found that the petitioner has left the charge about two months ago and new Medical Officer has been appointed by the respondent Authority.
4. Admittedly the alternate remedies of an appeal to the Administrator of respondent Authority and on failing thereof, a second appeal to Executive Board of respondent Authority, which is headed by Corps. Commander Lahore, as provided in section 25(2)(e) of Defence Housing Authority Lahore Order No.26 of 2002, are available to the petitioner and the same have not been availed. It is not explained that how said remedies are not efficacious. Even otherwise the petitioner has failed to disclose any enforceable vested right. He was never a regular employee of respondent Authority.
Throughout the period of his service, he remained an ad hoc employee for fixed term, which was extended from time to time I, therefore, see no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed with an observations that the petitioner may avail the aforesaid alternate remedies available to him.