' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.--- Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 12-9- 2002 passed by learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") whereby his Appeal No,788(R)/CS/2000 was dismissed and the order terminating his services was maintained.
2. Background leading to the filing of instant petition is thatpetitioner was engaged on 15-9-1996 as Temporary Medical Officer in Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "PTCL") Health Centre, Islamabad on the terms and conditions that his engagement was purely temporary in nature and liable to be terminated on fortnight notice without assigning any reason. He was allowed monthly reimbursement @ Rs,5 per patient subject to the condition that total emoluments should not exceed Rs,8,000 per month. His engagement was discontinued on 28- 4-1997 and he was offered freshengagement on part time basis with the terms and conditions that he shall perform duties for four hours daily on every working day and that the nature of appointment was purely temporary and liable to be terminated on fortnight notice without assigning any reason. His service were again terminated on 18-8-1999 and on the intervention of Minister for Communication he was reinstated on 6-10-1999 on part time basis on the terms and conditions as contained in the letter dated 5-11-1996. However, he was once again terminated vide order, dated 21-1-2000 on account of long absence but was reinstated vide letter dated 4-2-2000.
3. PTCL in order to convert the service of part time doctors as full time employees constituted a high-level selection committee to conduct interviews of the part time doctors. Accordingly, selection committee interviewed part-time doctors including petitioner on 26-9-2000, wherein he was found unfit. In consequence whereof the service of petitioner was terminated on 29-9-2000.
4. Petitioner in his representation dated 2-10-2000 claimed that he had in fact qualified in the interview before the committee as such he be appointed. The department rejected the representation vide letter dated 31-10-2000. It was against this order that he preferred above mentioned appeal before the Tribunal which was dismissed vide impugned judgment.
5. We have heard Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warriach, learned ASC on behalf of petitioner and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
6. Admittedly, petitioner was engaged on contract/part time basis by PTCL and his services were liable to be terminated on fourteen days notice. The orders dated 15-9-1996, 28-4-1997 and 4-2- 2000 show that petitioner was appointed on contract/part time basis. There is no cavil to the proposition that an employee appointed/engaged on contract/part time A basis has got no vested right to claim for being absorbed/appointed on regular/permanent basis. Moreover, PTCL in order to convert the services of part time doctors as full-fledged employees constituted a high level committee consisting of senior doctors and interviewed/examined petitioner but did not find him fit to be appointed as full time employee. The element of discrimination as contended by learned ASC for the petitioner is without any substance as the right to employ an employee vests with the employer only an employee cannot claim the vested right to be appointed. Moreover, petitioner has neither arrayed Dr. Wahid Bux g as party, against whom he claimed discrimination before Tribunal nor before this Court, as such he cannot claim discrimination against him. The plea of discrimination cannot be raised in absence of the party against whom discrimination was claimed. This, Court in the case of Shahid M. Akhtar v. Water and Power Development Authority through its Chairman and another 1994 SCM R 1275 has held that plea of discrimination cannot be raised in absence of party against whom discrimination was claimed.
7. Since no substantial question of law of public importance isinvolved in this case warranting grant of leave under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as such the petitioner being devoid of merit is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.