1. In pursuance of new Education Policy set forth in Martial Law Regulation No. 118, Lady Griffin Railway Girls High School, Lahore, was taken over by the Pakistan Railways. Miss Tasneem Malik, B. A., B. Ed.
2. Was then serving in the said private institution as an Assistant Mistress. She was --appointed thereto on 16-9-1971.
3. On 30th April 1973, an offer was made to appellant, Miss Tasneem Malik for absorption in the newly- taken over institution as an Assistant Mistress. The appointment was temporary but was to be governed by terms and conditions applicable to other Railway employees. The offer made on 30th April, 1973 was accepted vide letter 4th of May, 1973 and posting order thereafter was issued on 7th May, 1973.
4. On 11 January, 1974, notice of termination of service was served on the appellant, in following lines :-- "Consequent upon the reconsideration of the appeal of Miss N. Riaz, Ex-Assistant Mistress (300/750)
5. Lady Griffin Railway Girls High School, Lahore for re-instatement, the services of Miss Tasneem Malik who was appointed temporarily against her vacancy are hereby terminated with immediate effect."
6. It was surprising, Miss N. Riaz was no longer on rolls of the School at the time of take-over. She had resigned. Her resignation had been accepted by the then Management with effect from 13-10-1972.
7. In the context appointment of Miss Tasneem Malik was not subjected to any condition, least of all to the re-instatement of Miss N. Riaz. Feeling aggrieved she appealed to the Departmental authority, yet to no avail. Hence this appeal.th Her main contention is that appointment not being subject to any extraneous circumstance, termination was arbitrary. She prays that the order be vacated.
8. Respondent hazarded preliminary objections of misconceived appeal before two forums, its maintainability in the form and limitation. Besides it was contended that she being a temporary employee reasons for termination of service need not be considered, but the order of termination upheld because it conformed to the provision of section 11, subsection (3) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The reliance placed is on the following words in the section "Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1), but subject to the provisions of subsection (2), the service of a civil servant in temporary employment or appointed gad hoc shall be liable to termination on fourteen days' notice or pay in lieu thereof."
9. The learned counsel for respondents has evidently overlooked that purpose of the said provision is to be furthered by rules framed under section 25 of the said Act. He has not supported his contention by any such rule. On the other hand even the Section relied upon has been violated for want of 15 days' notice.
10. As pointed out by the learned counsel temporary employee has no permanent lien on any post yet as long as post continues, the incumbent cannot be retrenched arbitrarily. If appointment of Miss Malik had been subordinated to re-instatement of earlier incumbent, order would be beyond reproach, but it was not the case. Miss N. Riaz was no employee at the time of change cover. Offer of appointment to Miss Malik was against a permanent vacancy or at least such a vacancy which still persists. Unless declared undesirable, she could not be removed. The order is defective not only for lack of 14 days' notice, but also because her removal was for reasons not available. Nature of the posting is irrelevant. It does not invite arbitrary exercise of powers.
11. As to limitation the appeal was filed after abatement of Civil Suit ; No. 2/5 of 1972. Ninety days period being allowed under section 6 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 from the date of establishment of the Tribunal, the appeal is well within time. Allegation of vagueness also stands un--substantiated while the appeal having been withdrawn from the Labour Court, this cause does not remain to be agitated.
12. As a result of above discussion the order of termination of service being unjustified is vacated.