Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 881 of 1984, decided on 23rd April, 1985.

(Against the judgment and order, dated 3rd June, 1984 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Case No. 545/494 of 1983).

‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974), S.10‑ Termination of service‑‑Temporary ad hoc conditional appointment‑services terminated on failure to fulfil condition‑‑Order impugned‑ Termination being in accordance with terms and conditions on which petitioners were appointed, plea that their ad hoc appointment should be continued, held, untenable‑‑Petition being devoid of merits, leave to appeal refused.

Mukhtar Ahmad and 37 others v. Government of West Pakistan through the Secretary Food and Agriculture, Lahore and another PLD 1971 S C 846.

Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi

Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 23rd April 1985.

The petitioners who were all ad hoc Civil Judges and whose services stood terminated on their failure to successfully compete in the P.C.S. Judicial Examination seek leave to appeal against the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 3rd June, 1984 whereby their appeal against the termination of their services failed.

2. The petitioners, all of them, appeared in the competitive examination for recruitment of Civil Judges in the Punjab in 1980. They failed to qualify in the aggregate. Nevertheless they were appointed ad hoc Civil Judges on terms and conditions indicated hereunder:‑‑

"(i) The appointments shall be on purely temporary/ad hoc basis for a period of six months and the appointees shall have no right to continue in service or have any claim to regular appointment in the service.

(ii)

(iii) The appointees shall have to appear in the next competitive examination for Civil Judges to be conducted by the Punjab Public Service Commission to qualify themselves for regular appointment. In case they fail to qualify in the next competitive examination with the requisite standard laid down by the Punjab Public Service Commission or acquire a place in the merit list entitling them for regular appointment their ad hoc appointment shall be liable to be terminated immediately after the announcement of the result of the examination even though the period of this ad hoc appointment has not been expired."

3. While holding the posts of ad hoc Civil Judges they again appeared at the competitive examination held in 1981 in order to secure regular appointment. Once again they failed to qualify. Their services were terminated. They appealed to the Tribunal which rejected their claim as none of their vested right was violated.

4. The contention of the learned counsel is that the same procedure was followed for their appointment as is followed for making regular appointment. Hence notwithstanding the appellation "ad hoc" they on the strength of section 2(2) of the Civil Servants Act have to be treated as regular appointees. In any case, according to the learned counsel, by departing from the prescribed rule of appointment, the Governor acting As he did in consultation with Public Service Commission, shall be deemed to have modified the prescribed rule for making appointments as held in Mukhtar Ahmad and 37 others v. Government of West Pakistan through the Secretary Food and Agriculture, Lahore, and another P L D 1971 S C 846. Further, according to the learned counsel, the petitioners should have been allowed one more chance to appear at the competitive examination.

5. The rules prescribed for recruitment provided not only qualifying marks in individual subjects but also in the aggregate. By not obtaining qualifying marks in the aggregate the petitioners failed to obtain entry according to the prescribed method. The prescribed rule was neither relaxed nor changed, either expressly or by implication. Instead their appointment was taken and expressed to be otherwise than in accordance with the prescribed rule i.e. ad hoc, on terms reproduced. The termination of their service was in accordance with the law applicable to ad hoc appointments and in accordance with terms and conditions on which they were appointed. They can take as many chances as they like, subject of course to their eligibility, but their insistence that their ad hoc appointment should be continued meanwhile is untenable. We find no merit in this petition and leave to appeal is refused.

M.I. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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