Law: Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Section: Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2

JUDGMENT SHEET  ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR, J. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned orders dated 07.02.2022 and 26.02.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class and the learned Additional District Judge, West Islamabad respectively, whereby application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC (‘application’) was dismissed while appeal against the said orders also met the same fate.    2. Relevant facts are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction assailing termination letter dated 11.01.2022. Along with the suit, an application for stay has also been filed. The respondentdepartment contested the suit as well as application. The learned Trial Court after hearing the parties, dismissed the application vide order dated 07.02.2022. The petitioner assailed the said order in appeal but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 26.02.2022, hence instant writ petition.    The learned counsel argued that re-advertisement of the posts is not only violative of service rules of the respondentdepartment but also contravenes vested right of the petitioner;   that about fifty-four employees are being targeted for no fault on their part and that too without assigning any reason; that the petitioner has been serving the respondent for  quite long and after completion of  probation period, along with others was regularized, therefore, after regularization, there was no justification to throwout the petitioner in arbitrary manner and  that the power of appointment  or removal exclusively vests with the Board but has been exercised by the Vice President/Head of Coordination, therefore, impugned orders are liable to be set-aside. The learned counsel fortified his submissions by referring Order of the Hon’ble Lahore High Court passed in W.P. No. 5801/2022.   On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondentdepartment while contravening what has been stated above by the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the instant writ petition is not maintainable; that the relief sought cannot be granted as the petitioner was appointed…