Find a Lawyer

Case No. 768 of 1984, decided on 16th April, 1985.

‑‑‑Ss. 7 & 10(ii)‑‑Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, r. 8(1)(a)‑‑Seniority‑‑Civil Judge‑‑Not selected though appearing in examination for selection, held, by Public Service Commission and appointed on ad hoc basis with a rider to appear in next examination‑‑Ad hoc appointment terminated consequent upon failure to figure in select list of Public Service Commission drawn after next examination‑‑Appointment made against increased number of vacancies subsequently on basis of result of said subsequent examination‑ Seniority, in circumstances, held, reckonable from date of fresh appointment and appointee to be treated as recommendee of Public Service Commission on basis of earlier examination, held, incorrect..

Ch. Mushtaq Masood for Appellant.

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

. ‑‑Shaukat Iqbal Ahmed, Civil Judge, Chunian, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and the Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore through its Chairman, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned notification, dated 6‑10‑1983, be set aside and appellant be declared to have been regular in service since when the appellant was inducted into Judicial Branch service.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant in response to the advertisement in 'Pakistan Times', dated 18‑6‑1981 appeared in the competitive examination but was not recommended by the Punjab Public Service Commission for the said appointment. However, the Governor of the Punjab was pleased to appoint the appellant as ad hoc Civil judge, on the terms and conditions mentioned in Notification, dated 28‑6‑1982. One of the conditions was that the appellant should have to appear in the' next competitive examination for Civil Judges to be conducted by the Punjab Public Service Commission to qualify himself for regular appointment. The next examination was held by the Public Service Commission but in the said examination he did not come in the range of the posts sanctioned for recruitment as Civil Judges, as such his ad hoc appointment was terminated, vide Notification, dated 6‑10‑1983. Subsequently the number of posts of Civil Judges was increased from the required number and consequent thereof the appellant was appointed against one of the increased number of posts of Civil judges, vide Notification, dated 17‑3‑1984. However, his earlier appeal before this Tribunal was disposed of as premature as he was told that he should first of all exhaust the remedy so available to him with the next higher authority.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant's earlier appointment, dated 28‑6‑1982 having been made by respondent No. 1 on the recommendations of respondent No. 2, on the basis of the result of a competitive examination was a regular appointment and could not have been terminated by the impugned notification. It was further submitted that the appellant had successfully competed and qualified the next competitive examination, therefore, the appellant's service could not be terminated by the impugned notification on an erroneous assumption of the appellant having failed to qualify the said examination. In the end it was prayed for regularization of his service from the date of appointment from 28‑6‑1982.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the claim of the appellant is misconceived that he was recommended by the Punjab Public Service Commission after his appearance in the examination for the post of Civil Judge so advertised in the Newspapers. According to the learned District Attorney the fact of the matter is that he was never recommended by the Punjab Public Service Commission, as a number of posts against which competitive examination was held, were duly recommended by the Punjab Public Service Commission and the name. of the appellant did not figure in the said list of recommendees, therefore, he had no claim that he was recommended by the Public Service Commission for the Post of Civil Judge. It has been further submitted that he was only appointed on ad hoc basis by the Governor with a rider that he had to appear in the next competitive examination to qualify himself for regular appointment in the said service. It was pointed out that the appellant even then failed to secure the requisite marks and after allowing the grace marks in his case, he became qualified for such appointment. Learned District Attorney has adopted the comments of the Department in extenso and has prayed that the appointment of the appellant was initially on ad hoc basis and his services were terminated under section 10(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, therefore, he was no more in Government service till his new appointment as Civil Judge which was a. fresh one.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the appellant has been appointed by the Governor of the Punjab against the increased number of posts and whereas his earlier services were terminated, therefore, he was only entitled to claim his seniority from the date of his fresh appointment viz. 17‑3‑1984. We are fortified in our said observation on the ground that we have perused the list of recommendees of Punjab Public Service Commission and find that the name of the appellant was non‑existent, therefore, his plea that he should have been treated as recommendee of the Punjab Public Service Commission on the basis of earlier examination, is without any foundation. We are fully justified to hold that his plea is incorrect that he was appointed on regular basis as a Civil Judge in 1982.

8. In the light of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.

I. H.

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.