MRS. SHER W ALL Versus PAKISTAN
MUHAMMAD IRSHAD KHAN (MEMBER) .‑It is the case of the appellant that she was appointed as Principal, Federal Government Intermediate College for Women, Gilgit, in Grade‑18 on ad hoc basis where she joined duties with effect from 10th November, 1976. On 29th November, 1979 she was reverted from Grade‑18 to Grade‑17 under section 12‑A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. Aggrieved thereby she filed a representation which too was rejected and thereafter she filed an appeal before this Tribunal being Appeal No. 54(R) of 1980 on 12th April, 1980. While the said appeal was pending before this Tribunal the appellant's case was referred to the Federal Public Service Commission as a result whereof her services were regularized by the competent authority with effect from 10th February, 1976. Subsequently, however, vide Kashmir Affairs and Northern Area Affairs Division's letter, dated 22nd February, 1982 both the aforesaid orders were withdrawn and instead the competent authority decided to remove the appellant under section 12‑A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, from the post of Principal. Simultaneously vide Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas Affairs Division's letter, dated 23rd February, 1982 a fresh appointment on temporary basis was offered to the appellant in Grade‑17 thus foregoing of previous service and seniority of the appellant. These orders were represented against to the President of Pakistan and later were impugned before this Tribunal by way of Appeal No. 97 (R) of 1982 which was admitted and the respondents were served with notices. Thereafter on the 9th of May, 1983 three more orders were passed whereby the order, dated 22 nd February, 1982 was rescinded, the order, dated 29th November, 1979 was amended to the extent that the appellant was removed from service with effect from 29th November, 1979 and the order, dated 14th February, 1981 was partially modified to the extent that the appellant was appointed as Lecturer in Grade‑17 on regular basis with effect from 4th February, 1981 the date on which she was approved by the competent authority for appoint ment as Lecturer. Against these orders the appellant again submitted a representation to the President of Pakistan on 4th June, 1983 and when she did not receive any reply even on expiry of the statutory period she filed the present appeal with a prayer that she be regularised in Grade‑18.
2. We have heard the parties and , perused the record. It transpired that in October, 1978 the case of the appellant was reviewed by the Review Board constituted by the Kashmir Affairs and Northern Area Affairs Division to review appointments /promotions made during the period 1st January, 1972 to 5th July, 1977 in Northern Area colleges. The Board made the following recommendations in respect of the appellant:‑
"Appointed as Principal by the Education Division in Grade‑18 in January, 1976 with the approval of the then Minister for Education. Direct recruitment to Grade‑18 is not provided in the recruitment rules. The post should have been filled by promotion of eligible lecturers with at least five years service in Grade‑17. In any case, Prime Minister was the competent authority for appointment/pro motion to Grades 17 and 18. As such appointment was irregular. Appointment made in Grade‑18 may be terminated and the case may be referred to the Federal Public Service Commission for regu larization of appointment in Grade‑17."
The recommendation was approved by the competent authority meaning thereby that the appointment of the appellant in Grade‑18 was to be terminated and her case was to be referred to the Federal Public Service Commission to assess her fitness for appointment in Grade‑17 on regular basis. However, in the Office Order, dated 29th November, 1979 instead of notifying the approval of the competent authority for termination of the appellant's service, her reversion to Grade‑17 was erroneously notified. Since, however, such notified reversion was not based on any valid order, it had no legal effect and at least did not create any right in favour of the appellant. Because, as said above, the competent authority approved the termination of Grade‑18 appointment of the appellant and not her reversion to Grade‑17.
3. Again the competent authority on 'the recommendations of the Federal Public Service Commission, had approved the appointment of the appellant as lecturer (Grade‑17) on 4th February, 1981 to operate pros pectively. But in the Office Order, dated 14th February, 1981 it was erroneously indicated that the appointment of the appellant in Grade‑17 was regularized with effect from 10th February, 1976 although such regularization with retrospective effect was never approved by the competent authority. Therefore, mention of regularization with effect from 10th February, 1976 in the said office order was quite clearly incompetent and without any basis. Such an unfounded and unlawful action again does not create any right in favour of the appellant. That being so, the rescission of Office Order, dated 22nd February, 1982 the amendment of Office Order, dated 29th) November, 1979 and partial modification of Office Order, dated 14th February, 1981 as rightly and completely done by the three Office Orders, dated 9th May, 1983 was quite warranted and is not open to any exception.
4 In view of the foregoing, the grievance of the appellant is without any substance. As a result the appeal, having no merits, is dismissed with no order as to costs.
5. Before parting with, we would like .to observe that, as said above, all the trouble was brought by wrong drafting of the two office orders, dated 29th November, 1979 and 14th February, 1981. The Kashmir Affairs and Northern Area Affairs Division/ Establishment Division may like to make a probe to order to take appropriate action against the. person who is found responsible for the wrong done.
A. E. Appeal dismissed.