Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 17 of 1983, decided on 28th September, 1.983

Ss. 2 (a) & 12‑Ad hoc appointment‑Does not confer any vested right‑Seniority question not involved in such appointment‑Grade 16 official promoted in prescribed manner against a Grade‑17 vacancy caused on account of promotion on ad hoc basis of incumbent to Grade‑18‑Promotion made specifically on ad hoc basis‑Reversion from such ad hoc promotion, held, could not be challenged on grounds that promotion was made .in manner prescribed for regular promotion and person junior was still working in higher grade.

Gohar Ali Balouch for Appellant.

Manzoor Ali Khan for Respondent No. 4.

Hassan Akbar, A. A.‑G. for the State.

Date of hearing : 28th September, 1983.

‑‑The appellant Mr. Noor Muhammad Budget and Accounts Officer, Grade‑17 on expiry of 4 months' leave were reverted to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer, Grade‑16 by an order of the Government of Sind, dated 4th March, 1978. He has accordingly preferred this service appeal against the said reversion claiming seniority over the respondent No. 4 still serving in Grade‑17 and subsequently pro moted to Grade‑18.

The facts in brief are that the appellant on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee and with the approval of the Chief Minister, Sind, was promoted from regular appointment in Grade‑16 in the Directorate of Food, Sind, Karachi to Grade‑17 as Budget and Accounts Officer. This promotion, being against the vacancy created by the promotion of Mr. Bhatti Muhammad Shafi on ad hoc basis from Grade‑17 to Grade‑1.8, was also made on ad hoc basis as it was not against a perma nent vacancy.

The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant has argued that, although, the notification of the Food Department dated 1st February, 1977 promoting the appellant from Grade‑16 to Grade‑17 notified this promotion to be ad hoc basis, his appointment could be regarded as on regular basis, because it was made under the rules in the prescribed manner. However, that is not the only criterion for a regular appointment and when an appointment is made expressly on ad hoc basis in temporary vacancy, it does not become regular simply because the prescribed rules for appointment have otherwise been complied with. In case of ad hoc appointments, the question of seniority inter se does not arise. It is then discretionary with the Government to revert the officer appointed on ad hoc basis to his former post irrespective of the consideration of seniority.

It has been admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that no allegations were levelled against the appellant, nor was any notice issued to him and his reversion was made in the ordinary course on his return from long leave. But his objection is that this reversion was made without con sidering the question of seniority of the appellant, vis‑a‑vis respondent No. 4 in the lower Grade‑16 appointments.

The law is, however, clear on this point that the discretion in case of ad hoc appointees in this respect lies with the Government. Under section 12 of the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973, a civil servant appointed to a higher post or grade ad hoc or on temporary or officiating basis shall be liable to reversion to his lower post or grade without notice. This point was also considered in similar case by the High Court before the Civil Servants Act came into force and it was held in P L D 1968 Kar. 692 that "where a person was appointed on ad hoc basis and later reverted to his original post ; held that ad hoc appointees cannot claim the higher post as a matter o right, and their reversion is not reduction in rank." The promotion of the appellant being on ad hoc basis in a temporary vacancy, his ad hoc promo tion did not confer any vested right on the appellant to a post in Grade‑17 and he cannot now claim that he be promoted back to his post in Grade‑17 or placed senior to some other officer as there being no question of seniority involved in case of ad hoc appointments.

Lastly it has been argued by Mr. Gohar Ali Balouch on behalf of the appellant that the order of reversion under notification, dated 4th March, 1978 bears the signature of Secretary Food, Department and he had no powers to pass such orders in respect of officers in Grade‑17. The copy of order filed by him with a memo. of appeal as Annexure G' itself shows that the order has been approved by the Governor of Sind and it has been communicated by the Secretary, Food Department. It is presumed that all official acts are regularly performed. This contention is without any force.

In the result the appeal is dismissed, but no order is made as to costs

A.B. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.