Ch. ABDUL RAHMAN vs PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER
The petitioner, a Federal civil servant, sought leave to appeal against a Punjab Service Tribunal decision regarding his reversion from the post of Deputy Secretary. The petitioner had been appointed to the post on a regular basis by the Punjab Government, but his promotion was subsequently cancelled, leading to his reversion to the Federal Government. The Service Tribunal had previously ruled that while the initial appointment and promotion were regular, the appointment was made 'until further orders,' implying a reserved power to terminate. The Supreme Court examined whether the Government could interfere with an appointment made 'until further orders' without strictly adhering to specific reversion rules. The Court held that the appointment was made in isolation, bypassing competing claims of other eligible candidates. Furthermore, the Court determined that even if the promotion were regular, it would inherently be subject to a probationary period, which had not been dispensed with. As the reversion occurred within one year, the petitioner had no valid grievance. Consequently, the Court found no substantial question of law and refused leave to appeal.
- Can a civil servant challenge a reversion order when the appointment was made 'until further orders' and occurred within the probationary period?
- Does an appointment made in isolation without considering competing candidates confer a vested right against reversion?
- Is an appointment to a higher post inherently subject to probation if not explicitly dispensed with?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, J.-The petitioner, a civil servant, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 4-5-1980.
2. The petitioner was a Federal Civil servant In Grade No. 17 and the Governor of the Punjab appointed him as a Section Officer on regular basis in relaxation of the rules. In 1977, the Selection Board recommended him for promotion as Deputy Secretary and he was so appointed on 12-2- 1977. On 12-9-1977 the notification of his promotion was cancelled. The petitioner was reverted to the Federal Government. He challenged these orders before the Service Tribunal which ultimately held that the transfer of the petitioner and his appointment in Grade 17 by the Punjab Government was regular, the promotion too was regular in spite of the fact that others eligible to be considered for promotion were not considered along with the petitioner. All the same the Tribunal held that his appointment was against an existing vacancy until further orders. Thus, there was, according 'to the Tribunal, a power reserved in the appointment order itself to terminate the apartment which could be prospectively exercised. To that extent alone that order was given effect to.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the background of an existing vacancy and the appointment being until further orders it was not open to the Government to interfere with it except in accordance with rules governing the reversion of the petitioner.
4. We find that not only the orders were expressed to be until further orders the selection of the petitioner had been made as noted by the Service tribunal in isolation without considering the competing claims of other candidates for the post. Even if it were a regular promotion of indefinite duration the appointment of the petitioner as Deputy Secretary could no -but be on probation, there being nothing to show that the requirement o probation was dispensed with. As his reversion took place within a year h could have no grievance against the reversion as such there being no sti attaching to it.
5. The petition raises no question of law and leave is refused.