Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 24 of 1984, decided on 20th May, 1985.

‑‑No. 55‑Ad hoc appointments regularization‑Appointment made through initial recruitment not according to prescribed method without obtaining clearance of Selection or Promotion Board or Committee‑Within purview of M. L. O. 55‑Appointment of person already in service in Grade‑16 made in 1973 Grade‑17 on ad hoc basis subject to approval of Provincial Education Recruitment Board but same never obtained and appointment extended from time to time Case, in circumstances, field, within purview of M. L. O. 55 Select Committee under M. L. O. 55 considering appointee not fit for post held in Grade 17 because of not possessing prescribed qualifications and recommending for reversion to Grade‑16 post‑ Competent authority reverting him to his substantive post in terms of recommendations of Selection Committee under para. 6(i) & (fi) of M. L. O. 55‑Contention that appointee having been appointed to Grade‑17 by initial recruitment and not by promotion could not be reverted to his substantive appointment ‑ Contention repelled -Competent authority, held, could appoint such person to a lower post or different post instead of terminating his services under para. 7 of M. L. O. 55.

‑‑No. 55‑Ad hoc appointments‑Regularisation of‑Time limit -Applicable to scrutiny of cases and not to resulting action after scru tiny‑Period of 90 days for scrutiny extended upto 30th September, 1978‑Review finalised before 30th September, 1978‑Reversion order in pursuance of recommendations of Selection Committee issued in 1983‑Contention that application of M. L. O. 55 had till then expired‑Contention repelled‑Review having been finalised before 30th September, 1978 resultant reversion order, in circumstances, held, perfectly legal and valid.

‑‑No. 55‑Sind Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), S. 4‑Provi sional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 15(2)‑Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal ‑ Order of reversion passed in pursuance of review under M. L. O. 55 ‑ Not within jurisdiction of Tribunal.

Imdadally Agha for Appellant.

A. A. Muhammedally, A.‑A. G. for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 14th May, 1985.

‑The appellant, a Subject Specialist in Social Studies, N. P. S. 14 (now B‑15) on being reverted as High School Teacher under M. L. O. 55 has preferred this service appeal under section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973.

The facts in brief are that by an order, dated 13th October, 1973 the appellant was appointed Subject Specialist by direct recruitment from his substantive post of High School Teacher on ad hoc basis for six months in relaxation of the rules. The prescribed qualification for the post was M. A., second division, but the appellant did not have the requisite qualification ; he being a M. A., third division. The appointment was made initially for a period of six months on ad hoc basis subject to the approval by the Provincial Education Recruitment Board, but his case was not referred to the Board and he continued in service by getting extensions from time to time. His last extension was effective upto June, 1978. Thereafter, no extension was issued by the Government but the appellant continued to serve in Grade‑17 until the. Government finally issued his impugned reversion notification, dated 7th November, 1983. This was done as a result of scrutiny of ad hoc appointments by the Select Committee under M. L. O. 55. The Committee had held its meeting on 26th August, 1978 when the case of the appellant came up before it. The Committee consisting Mr. W. A. Kermani, Secretary to Government of Sind, Forest Department as Chairman and Mr. Nazar Muhammad Shaikh, Director, Industries and Mr. R. A. Shah, Secretary to Government, Education Department as members, observed as under :‑

"The service particulars as per prescribed pro forma were examined and it was observed that Mr. Selangi possesses Masters Degree in third division as against the prescribed qualification of Masters Degree in second division for the post. As such, the Select Committee did not consider him fit to be retained in the present post. He may, however, be reverted to a Grade‑16 qualifications in terms of sub‑para. (ii) of para. 6(i) of M. L. O. 55.

This recommendation was forwarded to the Director, School Education, Hyderabad and on 21st November, 1983 in pursuance of Government of Sind, Education Department Notification No. SO (E‑iv) Misc. 49/78, dated 7th November, 1983 the appellant was reverted to his substantive post as High School Teacher in terms of sub‑para. (ii) of para. 6(i) of M. L. O. 55.

The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that the case of the appellant had been erroneously referred for scrutiny under M. L. O. 55 as his appointment was not ad hoc under the terms of the said M. L. O.

The learned counsel has then argued that the appellant could not be reverted as High School Teacher on the ground that his substantive appointment was that of High School Teacher because he had been appointed in Grade‑47 not by promotion, but by initial recruitment on relaxation of the rules by the then Governor.

Lastly, it has been argued that the notification reverting him has been issued on 21st November, 1983 when by that time application of M. L. O. 55 had expired.

It may, however, be pointed out that the very appointment order, dated 13th October, 1973 shows that the appointment of the appellant was purely temporary arrangement for a period of six months on ad hoc basis or subject to the approval of the Provincial Education Recruitment Board. This appointment had been made in relaxation of the rule as to prescribed qualification which was M. A., second division while the appellant was M. A., third division. The case of the appellant, therefore, came within purview of ad hoc appointments regularization Order No. 55 issued by the Governor and Martial Law Administrator, Zone 'C' on 2nd May, 1978. Under para. 2 of the M. L. O. 55 ad hoc appointment means and includes an appointment which has not been made in accordance with the prescribed method of appointment/service rule. Ad hoc appointment also includes cases of initial recruitment without obtaining clearance from Selection or Promotion Board or Committee. It is an admitted position that the case of the appellant had never been referred to the Selection Committee, although, this was a condition prescribed in the order of his ad hoc appointment. The case .of the appellant, therefore, very much falls within the purview of M. L. O. 55.

Under para. 6 of the M. L. O. the appropriate Board or Committee scrutinizing the case of the ad hoc appointee was empowered to record its finding whether the ad hoc appointee‑ should be offered a lower or a different post and this finding is to be forwarded to the appointing authority concerned. Such authority could under para. 7 take action and appoint such person to a lower or different post instead of terminating his service. Under the circumstances the appellant should be grateful that he was offered a post which is now in N. P. S. 15.

Regarding the plea taken that the application of the M. L. O. had expired it may be stated that what was subject to time limit was the completion of the scrutiny and not the resulting action after scrutiny. Para. 8 of M. L. O. 55 reads as under :‑

"The Sind Public Service Commission, appropriate Board of Com mittee or, Select Committee, as the case may be, shall complete the scrutiny of ad hoc appointments referred to them within a period of 90 days from the date of issue of 'this order unless the period is extended with the approval of the Martial Law Adminis trator.",

Under the Services and General Administration Department letter, dated 12th August, 1978 it was notified that the time limit fixed for completion of scrutiny of ad hoc appointments had been further extended upto 30th September, 1978, by the Martial Law ‑ Administrator, Zone C' with the specific orders that review of pending cases should be finalized by the due date.

As already stated the case of the appellant was reviewed by the Selection Board and orders passed on 26th August, 1978. The review was, therefore, finalized long before the expiry date of 30th September, 1978. The passing of the reversion order as a result of the recommendation of the Review Board subsequently was perfectly legal and valid as the time limit applied to completion of scrutiny by the Selection Committee.

Lastly, it may be pointed out that the Service Tribunal cannot even otherwise come to the rescue of the appellant by deciding his case on facts and merits because under the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, para. 15(2), all orders made, proceedings taken and acts done by any authority or by any person, which were made, taken or done, or purported to have been made, taken/or done after 5th July, 1977, in exercise of the powers derived from any Martial Law Order passed by any authority, shall not be called in question in any Court. The jurisdiction of all Courts and Tribunals has thus been excluded, in cases resulting from orders passed under Martial Law Regulations or Orders.

In the result the appeal is dismissed with no order as costs.

A.E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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