I. MAHMUD, J.------Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-1386/78, D-1387/78, D-1388/78, D-1389/78, D- 1390/78, D-1391/78, D-1392/78, D-1393/78, D-1422/78, D-1651/78, D-1670/78 and D-1671/78, were heard together, as they raised common questions of fact and law, and will be disposed of this judgment.
2. Each of the petitioners in these twelve petitions, was appointed as temporary Food Grain Inspector against the newly created posts of Food Grain Inspectors on various dates between 27th May 1973 and 27th April 1976, in the pay scale of Rs. 165-8-205/10--255/10-315, now National Pay Scale Grade-6, pursuant to an advertisement dated 2nd February 1972 and in some cases, later on, on their own applications. The appointments were purely temporary against temporary posts and the services of the petitioners were liable to 'be terminated at any time after 14 days' notice without assigning any reason therefor. Their appointments were subject to verification of character am antecedents and production of educational and domicile certificates. However, in the case of Nazir Ahmed, petitioner in C. P. No. D-1422 of 1978, he was appointed on 7th April 1976 temporarily on the direct orders of the Minister, Food & Forest, Govern--ment of Sind; in a post which was not sanctioned. On 27th Match 1978, M. L. O. 55, Zone-C called the "Ad hoc Appointments Regularisation Order' was promulgated. Thereupon in July 1978, petitioners were directed to appointed to appear before a Divisional Committee constituted under provisions of M. L. O. 55 for regularisation of their ad-hoc appointments. Their cases were assessed by the said, Committee, who forwarded Its findings to the appointing authority, namely, the Deputy Director Food of the Region, to the effect that none of the petitioners was found suitable for retention as Food Grain Inspector. Accordingly, the services of each of the petitioners were terminated by the Deputy Director, Food, Karachi Region on 24th August 1978 under paragraph 7(i) of M. L. O.
55. With immediate effect on payment of salary for 15 days. The termination order was, however, stayed for a few days pending consideration of representations filed by the petitioners. Their cases were re-examined at a higher level and some of them were also given personal hearing. But, it was finally decided by the office order dated 11th October 1978 that the decision taken by the Divisional Committee, Karachi constituted under M. L. O. 55 should stand and, accordingly, in supersession of the stay order, the services of the petitioners and other Food Grain Inspectors were terminated with immediate effect.
Being aggrieved by the final orders of termination of their services, the petitioners have filed the present Constitu--tional Petitions to question the same as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
3. The main contention put forward by Mr. G. H. Abbasi, learned counsel for the petitioners was that the appointments of the petitioners were made by competent authority in clear vacancies after advertising the posts and were not in contravention of the Recruitment Rules. That, as such, their cases did not fall within the purview of M. L. O. 55 and have been erroneously referred to the Committee for regularisation thereunder. The case of the respondents as set out in the counter- affidavit of Mian Bahadur Shah, Deputy Director Food, Karachi Region, Karachi dated 15 May 1975 was that the appointments of the petitioners were made in violation of the Recruitment Rules in several respects. The Recruitment Rules were the West Pakistan Food Department Subordinate Executive Establishment Recruitment Rules, 1962. It was deposed by him that although appointment orders were issued in the name of the prescribed appointing authority, namely, the Deputy Director Food, Incharge of the Region, he was never consulted and the appointments were made on the directions of the then Minister Food and Agriculture and that in fact cyclostyled pro forma appointment orders were got prepared which were given to the petitioners by the Minister. The method of recruitment prescribed in rule 5 of the said Rules was also contravened, which provided that not' more than 25 % of the vacancies shall be filled by initial recruit--ment.' Further, appointments were made of persons who were not bona fide residents of Karachi Region in contravention of Rule 5(4) thereof, which provided that vacancies by initial recruitment shall be reserved for the bona fide residents of the region where the vacancies occur. These alleged contravention of the Rules were denied by some of the petitioners in their rejoinder affidavits.
However, in so far as the alleged contraventions raise controversial questions of fact depending on numbers and date of posts and proportion of vacancies not filed region-wise, it is beyond the scope of a Constitutional Petition to decide.
4. The fact remains, however, that the appointments of the petitioners were purely temporary on ad-hoc basis against temporary vacancies and they had not even been regularised. In the case of Nazir Ahmed, petitioner in C. P. No. D-1422/78, his appointment was made without post or pay pending sanction of post. The aforementioned Recruitments Rules, prescribed the method for initial appointments to regular posts which were specified in the Appendix to the said Rules and to such other permanent posts in the Department as may be sanctioned from time to time. The inital appoint--ments of the petitioners were not made substantively to any such posts, but were merely temporary appointments or ad hoc appointments to temporary posts which were liable to be terminated at any time on 14 days' notice without assigning any reason not only as provided in thei terms of appointments, but they were also liable to termination on 14 days' notice or pay in lieu thereof as provided in section 11(3) of the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973. Therefore, we are of the opinion, that the appointments of the petitioners clearly fell within the meaning and definition of "ad hoc appointments" contained in para. 2(a) (i) of M. L. O. 55, for they were not made in accordance with the above-mentioned Recruit--ment Rules, 1962. The cases of the petitioners were, therefore, rightly referred to the Divisional Committee under paragraph 3(iii) of Part I of theth said M. L. O.
55. The service record of the petitioners were assessed by the Divisional Committee with a view to see whether they could be found suitable for retention in service. But the petitioners were found not suitable for retention especially in the cases of those against whom depart-- mental disciplinary proceedings for misconduct, derelection of duty and corruption were pending.
No exception, can, therefore, be taken to the termination of the appointments by the appointing authority in the exercise of powers conferred under paragraph 7(i) of the said M. L. O. 55.
5. Mr. G. H. Abbasi also attacked the validity of the M. L. O. 55 on the ground that it was ultra vires of the Zonal Martial Law Administrator and also on the ground that it was not covered by the doctime of State Necessity as laid down by the Supreme Court in Begum Nusrat Bhutto v. Chief of Army Staff (PLD 1977 SC 657). We had considered these submission at length and-- we have rejected the same in C. P. Nos. D-804/78, D-813/78 and D-814/78.
6. For the foregoing reasons, we find the petitions are without merit. They are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.