ABDUL RAHMAN Versus PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL
The petitioner, a civil servant holding Grade 17, sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against the decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 4-5-1980. The petitioner had been appointed as a Section Officer by the Punjab Government, subsequently promoted as Deputy Secretary on 12-2-1977, and later reverted to the Federal Government when his promotion notification was cancelled on 12-9-1977. The Service Tribunal had upheld the regularization of his initial appointment and promotion but found that his appointment was against an existing vacancy until further orders, reserving power to terminate it. The core legal question was whether the Government could interfere with an appointment made until further orders without following the strict rules governing reversion. The Supreme Court held that the appointment was of indefinite duration and operated on probation since the requirement of probation was not dispensed with, and his reversion within a year caused no legal grievance as there was no stigma attached to it. The petition raised no question of law, and leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
- Whether an appointment made until further orders can be interfered with by the Government without strictly following the rules governing reversion?
- Does an appointment of indefinite duration without a waiver of probation requirements operate as an appointment on probation?
- Whether the reversion of a civil servant within a year from a post held on probation without any stigma attached gives rise to a valid legal grievance?
- 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.
Petition dismissed.