' Vide letter dated 14-6-1999 of the Government of the Punjab, in the Education Department, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor, Automation Technology (BS-18) in the Technical Wing of the Education pepartmenr on the recommendation of the Punjab Public Service Commission. According to the said order, the said post was temporary, likely to be made permanent (upto June, 2002). On 4-9-1999, the Punjab Technical Education and Vocational Training Authority Ordinance (No.XLV), 1999 was promulgated. According to section 10(2), thereof, all employees of the Institutions or offices taken over by the Authority, stood transferred to the Authority on terms and conditions which shall not be less favourable than those admissible to them immediately before their transfer to the said Authority. Subsection (3) of section 10 provides that the transferred employees shall continue to be the Government employees liable to the transferred back to the Government by the Authority, unless absorbed in the service of the Authority is such manner as may be prescribed. It was under the aforesaid provisions that the service of the petitioner stood transferred to the TEVTA.
2. The grievance in this petition is that although the petitioner was appointed in the service of the Government of the Punjab on the basis of the recommendation of the Punjab Pubic Service Commission and was a regular employee, he was not being treated as a regular employee and according to the impugned letter dated 2-8-2003 of the District Manager, of the TEVTA, it was declared that the petitioner was a contract employee.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while in the service to TEVTA, the petitioner continued to be a regular employee of the Government of the Punjab although against a temporary post, and his status as such could not have been altered to his disadvantage by the TEVTA.
4. It may be noted that vide order dated 15-8-2003, the petitioner was selected as Mechanical Manager in National Development Complex, Government, of Pakistan The petitioner was not being relieved. However, during the pendency of this petition, he has been relived to join the new assignment but the relieving order does not indicate, the status of the petitioner as a regular employee of the Government of the Punjab.
5. The representative of the TEVTA, however, maintains that the petitioner was employed for a specific project i.e. Technical Education Project and was, thus, his employment in Punjab Government was contractual in nature.
6. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been considered. The post against which the petitioner was selected and appointed, was duly advertised in the newspaper, the process of selection was undertaken and the petitioner was selected and appointed to the post. He was subject to the provisions of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and as such other Service Rules and Regulations as may be issued by the Government of the Punjab from time to time. The order of appointment also subjected him to probation for a period of two years as well as verification of his antecedents. Thus; it was regular appointment in the service of the Government of the Punjab in accordance with the provisions of the section 2(2) of the Punjab Civil Servant Act, 1974. Although, this order of appointment shows that the post for which the petitioner was selected was temporary but even the temporary nature of the said post did not convert the petitioner into contract employee. In any case he was the employee of the Government of the Punjab and was transferred to the TEVTA under the provisions of Ordinance XLV of 1999 and, therefore, the TEVTA, had, otherwise, no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the order passed by the Government as to the nature of appointment of the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is allowed, it is declared that the petitioner has been a regular employee of the Government of the Punjab holding a temporary post.
No order as to costs.