ORDER   SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Constt: Petition No.D-548 of 2008.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

Before:

Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah,

 Mr. Justice Shamsuddin Abbasi,

For hearing of main case.

15.12.2021

                        Petitioner in person.

                        Mr. Ghayoor Abbas Shahani, Advocate for private respondents.

                        Mr. Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, Addl.A.G Sindh.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

1.         It is contended by the petitioner that he was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor with fix pay of Rs.30,000/- per month; his services were dispensed with without notice; the same may be continued and appointment of the private respondents subsequent to him as Special Public Prosecutors be declared as illegal.

2.         Learned Addl.A.G Sindh has sought for dismissal of the instant constitutional petition by contending that appointment of the petitioner was on purely temporarily basis and his service has rightly been dispensed with by the Authority.

3.         It is contended by learned counsel for the private respondent that none of them is in service, therefore, their appointment could not be declared to be illegal.

4.         We have considered the above arguments and perused record.

5.         Apparently, appointment of the petitioner was against fix pay of Rs.30,000/- per month, it was not regular, it obviously was adhoc or temporary, therefore, there was hardly a need for the Authority to have served the petitioner with the notice before dispensing with his service. Be that as it may, 13 years have now been passed; therefore, services of the petitioner as Special Public Prosecutor on fix pay on adhoc or temporary basis could not be ordered to be continued. As per learned counsel for the private respondents, none of them is now in service. No appointment could be ordered to be declared as illegal or otherwise when the very appointee is not in service.

6.         In case of Mrs. Naila Khalid Vs. Pakistan through Secretary Defence and others (PLD 2003 SC-420), it has been held by the Honourable Apex Court;

“Adhoc appointment of person does not confer any right or interest to continuous appointment. It is well settled that services of such employee can be dispensed with any moment without assigning any reason.”

7.         Consequent upon above, the instant constitutional petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly, with no order as to costs.

J U D G E

          J U D G E