Kh. Shahad Ahmed, J.--The instant appeal by our leave is directed against an order passed by the High Court on 8.4.2005. The petition for leave to appeal was filed in this Court by the appellant, herein. He prayed for interim relief by submitting that one of the posts of Assistant Engineers Electricity, out of two posts reserved for Muzaffarabad District and occupied by him, may not be filled in on the recommendation of Public Service Commission, by the Government till decision of his appeal by the Supreme Court. Mr. Justice Kh. Muhammad Saeed, the learned Chief Justice of the time while granting leave to appeal, also allowed application for ad-interim relief by directing as under:-- As the petition has been allowed, therefore, it appears appropriate to direct that one of the posts, presently occupied by the petitioner shall not be filled in till the decision of his appeal by this Court."
2. This order was issued on 9.5.2005 and since then the appellant is holding the post of Assistant Engineer Electricity/SDO Electricity Department of Azad Jammu & Kashmir Government.
3.The appellant filed a Writ Petition No, 469/04 on 20.11.2004 with the following factual matrix and prayed for appropriate direction to the respondents-Government of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, Public Service Commission etc. while elaborating his case he submitted before the High Court that he is working as ad-hoc appointee for the past 10 years but due to the reason that no post was available in the district Quota of Muzaffarabad, he couldn't be appointed on regular basis as postulated by rules. As two posts for district Muzaffarabad have been advertised, the appellant on account of age-limit is unable to compete for the post, therefore, on the strength of his long stay on ad-hoc basis coupled with some legal reports from Pakistan jurisdiction, he solicited following relief from the High Court-- "In view of above, it is humbly prayed that by accepting this writ petition, high prerogative writs of mandamus and others being necessary may kindly be issued, directing therein that in peculiar circumstances of the case in hand, the process of regularization of the petitioner through P.S.C. on the post of Assistant Engineer (B-17) held by him for the period of past 10 long years will be initiated forthwith and his case for regularization/confirmation shall be sent to the respondent No, 4, separately on one man one post basis without tagging him with direct recruits or advertisement/publication of the post in the press etc. Of course, if the petitioner is not found suitable by the P.S.C. he may not be entitled to be retained in service later on. Any other relief which the humble petitioner is deemed fit to be awarded by this Honourable Court in law, justice and equity is also humbly solicited on his behalf."
4. The writ petition was admitted for regular hearing by learned Judge of the High Court on 22.11.2004 and as far the application for interim relief is concerned, the learned Judge also allowed the same after suspending the requirements of Rule 34 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules and directed as under: After considering the case of the petitioner in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan it is felt proper to allow this application. Respondents, therefore, are directed to maintain status quo till the decision of this petition. However. this order is subject to objections by the other side. The case shall come up for written statement on December 27, 2004."
5. The written statement with preliminary objections on behalf of the respondents was filed by Muhammad Noorullah Qureshi, advocate, on 27.12.2004. It is enigmatic that it was categorically denied in the preliminary objections that requisition for recommendation from the Public Service Commission was not made by the concerned Electricity Department and as far a facsimile of requisition by the Electricity Department is concerned, the same was termed as forged document.
In addition it was replied by the official respondents that the Public Service Commission conducted the required test/examination for the post of Assistant Engineer (B-17) but the petitioner couldn't qualify-, therefore, on the basis of fake and fabricated documents and for concealing true facts, a discretionary relief cannot be granted to him and entailed dismissal of his petition. On merits it was submitted that the appellant is not working against a permanent post rather he is continuing as Assistant Engineer Electricity on temporary basis, against the vacancies caused due to absence or leave of other officers from, time to time. If addition it was also submitted that no permanent appointment in Grade B-16 or above can be made without advertisement and qualifying test/interview held by the Public Service Commission nor can the powers under Section 22 of the AJ&K Civil Servants Act, 1976 be exercised for the purpose. As far the referred authorities by the Supreme Court of Pakistan are concerned, it was pleaded that the High Court and the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir have held therewise. On 3.2.2005 a replication was filed on behalf of the present appellant wherein it was inter alia contended that misstatement facts has been made by the Electricity Department as through a proclamation in daily "Nawa-e-Waqt" on 12.1.2005, 17 posts of Assistant Engineers Electrical are to be filled in through direct recruitment and out of those posts 6 posts are available against the quota of District Muzaffarabad, which, according to the appellant, meant that at the relevant time permanent posts were available in the Department, including one which he was holding. It was also stated that stand of the Electricity Department that no permanent post was available against which the appellant could be appointed, was not correct according to the Department's own record.'
6. The High Court through the impugned judgment dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, herein, after holding that the document attached with the writ petition was found fake, equitable relief couldn't be granted in favour of the appellant, herein. The High Court also considered the case of the petitioner so far as it relates to his continued ad-hoc service but rejected the same by holding that in the year 1997 four posts of Assistant Engineers (B-17) were requisitioned to the Public Service Commission. The appellant appeared for his selection but his appointment was not recommended in view of the merit order prepared by the Public Service Commission. The learned Judge for this purpose summoned the relevant record of the Public Service Commission admittedly after the arguments and based his findings by holding that four posts against the quota of District Muzaffarabad were available and those were filled in according to the merit order but as the petitioner/appellant was placed at Serial No, 14 of the merit list, he couldn't be recommended by the Public Service Commission. On the basis of misstatement by the appellant the High Court disallowed the writ petition and also refused equitable relief.
7. The learned counsel for the parties have addressed their respective 'arguments in detail with different law reports from Azad Jammu & Kashmir and Pakistan in support of their respective contentions. In addition to the arguments raised before the High Court and in their concise statement, an additional argument has been taken on behalf of the appellant that the High Court has travelled beyond pleadings of the parties when it summoned the record of the Public Service Commission after hearing the arguments of the parties, which exercise couldn't be undertaken by the High Court in view of admitted legal position that the judgments are to be based on the pleadings of the parties, documents and affidavits and the Court cannot base its order on some record which has not been summoned before hearing of the case.
8. Admittedly the appellant was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Electricity) in BPS-17 on 11.8.1994.
This order a facsimile of which is at page 16 of the paper-book, also reveals that the requisition for appointment against this post had been sent to the Public Service Commission on the same day.
He was again appointed on ad-hoc basis on 4.2.1998 and from that date onwards extension in his ad-hoc appointment has repeatedly been ordered. Copies of the extension orders have been attached with the appeal. A copy of the recommendation by the Chief Engineer (Electricity) dated 28.8.2004 has also been placed on record, wherein it has been admitted that the appellant is working on ad-hoc basis from 1994 and his performance as such is satisfactory, therefore, he is most suited for permanent induction. Through this letter, Secretary Electricity Department has been requested to forward the case of the appellant to the Prime Minister of Azad Jammu & Kashmir under Section 22 of the Civil Servants Act, 1976. At page 29 of the paper-book another attestation/certificate has been placed, which appears to have been issued by the Chief Engineer Electricity on 16.9.1996, wherein it has been certified that the appellant is working as Assistant Engineer Electricity since 23.8.1994 and he is performing his duties as such. Another certificate, a facsimile of which is at page 30 of the paper-book, has been issued by the Chief Engineer Electricity on 30.9.2004 wherein it has again been certified that the appellant has done his job to the best satisfaction of his seniors and that he earned/won appreciation of the senior Officers for his remarkable performance in constructing Garhi Dupatta Feeder during his tenure as S.D.O. Garhi Dopatta. It has also been reconfirmed that he is a Gold-Medalist. The other side of the picture admittedly reveals that the appellant misstated certain facts in the High Court and in particular concealed the fact that when the Public Service Commission conducted test/interview in 1997 he couldn't find place in the merit list against the available posts reserved for District Muzaffarabad. It is, however, admitted by the respondents that he qualified the test/interview and was placed at Serial No, 14 in the list of successful candidates. He was appointed on ad-hoc/temporary basis in 1994 and he is still working as ad-hoc appointee on the strength of some Government orders and is holding the post at resent under the interim relief order issued by the Supreme Court in 2005, when the petition for leave to appeal was granted by this court and his application that out of 2 seats reserved for District Muzaffarabad one may not be filled in through the Public Service Commission was allowed.' In any case he is holding the post of Assistant Engineer Electricity on ad-hoc basis, admittedly for the last 14 years. Admittedly, as well, he has crossed the upper age-limit to qualify and contest for regular appointment against the post under rules. We, therefore, proceed to decide as to whether any relief, particularly one claimed by the appellant can be granted?
9. The facts mentioned hereinabove in Paragraph No, 8 bring us to the unrebuttable conclusion that the judgment recorded by the High Court has been recorded on the basis of facts which were not argued at the stage of arguments when the record of the Public Service Commission was summoned after reserving the judgment. This Court in repeated judgments and time-honoured findings of the superior Courts of Sub-Continent has held that, even the superior Courts are bound to record the judgments on pleaded facts and arguments addressed at bar. The reliance in this respect can be placed on some of the judgments of this Court, especially 1994 SCR 341 and 1994 SCR 297.
10. We may also add it here before adverting to legal position and law reports that the Department and even all the respondents in their written statement have categorically stated that the appellant appeared before the Public Service Commission but couldn't qualify. It, however, has been accepted that the appellant is working as Assistant Engineer on temporary/ad-hoc basis.
The fact that the appellant appeared before the Public Service Commission unfolded when after hearing the arguments on 30.3.2005 the learned Judge on 31.3.2005 summoned the record of the Public Service Commission but no further date was fixed as on 30.3.2005 the judgment in the case had been reserved. Finally the impugned judgment was announced on 8.4.2005 as stated above. It, therefore, follows that the judgment of the High Court is mainly based on its own conclusions which have been drawn after perusal of the record summoned, which procedure has repeatedly been disapproved by this Court. The impugned judgment, therefore, suffers from a legal fault, necessitating the remand of the case to the High Court, which order we do not propose to pass in view of the peculiar set of circumstances of this case. The appellant in his writ petition has clearly prayed for an appropriate writ for a direction to the official respondents for process of regularization of the appellant through Public Service Commission on the post of Assistant Engineer (B-17) held by him for a period of over one decade. It was also prayed that his case for regularization/confirmation be sent to the Public Service Commission separately on the one man, one post basis without tagging him with fresh graduates or advertisement of the post and in case the appellant is not found suitable by the Public Service Commission, he may not be retained in service. In presence of this prayed relief the High Court couldn't, in our considered view, dismiss .the writ petition on the ground that the appellant/petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands as he had pleaded some facts which were found to be against the record. Similarly the High Court was not justified to hold that equitable relief cannot be granted to the appellant on account of his filing writ petition in the High Court with unclean hands. The High Court, in our view, should have addressed the prayer clause by holding that the case of the appellant cannot be referred to the Public Service Commission for determining of his suitability and that the legal reports relied on behalf of the appellant couldn't be followed. Similarly when the Government functionaries were stopped through the stay order to advertise one of the posts, the High Court should have recorded a specific finding in this respect. Admittedly the appellant is in the service of Azad Jammu & Kashmir Government in the Electricity Department for the last 14 years, drawing his monthly pay from the exchequer and enjoying the status of Assistant Engineer Electricity (B-17) along with other perks and privileges without a regular appointment order at his back. It also appears a clear violation of the codal provisions laid down in repeated authorities of this Court postulating that entry into service, particularly of grade 17, has to be made by the competent authority on the basis of recommendations of the Public Service Commission, which under law are to be recorded after test and interview. In this view of the matter we propose to dispose of this appeal ourselves and settle the controversy once for all.
10. Admittedly a chain of authorities of this Court and umpteen number of judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan have settled the proposition of law that ad-hoc appointment doesn't create any right for regular appointment and that it is a stop-gap arrangement which has to continue till a regular appointment, as postulated by the Civil Servants Act, 1976 and the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977, is made.
Similarly an ad-hoc appointment, as far legal position is concerned, doesn't confer any right whatsoever irrespective of the period of such an incumbency. The ad-hoc appointment can be made for a limited period when the post is available and the same is advertised by the Public Service Commission. If ad-hoc appointments are regularized, even by the Legislative Assembly, the piece of legislation is ultra vires the Constitution and has to be removed from the Statute Book.
Similarly the executive Government while exercising its powers under Section 22 of the Civil Servants Act, 1976, if regularizes the appointment of an ad-hoc appointee or exempts the incumbent from appearing before the Public Service Commission, the notification or order so issued is to be sent to sleep forever. Thus, no right can be conferred on an ad-hoc appointee for regular induction without recommendations of the Public Service Commission, is the law.
Reference in this respect can be made to the cases reported as 1994 SCR 341 and 1994 SCR 297. In addition the cases reported as 1996 SCR 165 and 2001 SCR 91 can be referred.
11.11.In Pakistan the proposition remained under active consideration of the Federal and Provincial Governments and was seriously adhered to by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Federal and some of the Provincial Governments have enacted regularization of ad-hoc appointments through the legislative bodies and even by notification but the view of the Supreme Court of Pakistan remains the same as in Azad Jammu & Kashmir that ad-hoc appointments do not create any right for regular appointment and that the only door/entry gate open for permanent induction in the Government service is through respective Public Service Commissions and selection committee. A reference in this respect can be made to some of the judgments recorded by the superior Courts of Pakistan, particularly the following:--
(i) 1982 SCMR 408,
(ii) 1984 PLC (CS) 211,
(iii) 1983 PLC (CS) 673, and
(iv) 1994 PLC (CS) 1078.
12. This may, however, be mentioned here that the appellant has not claimed a right of regularization on the basis of his continuous appointment on ad hoc basis. He challenged the advertisement of two posts reserved for district Muzaffarabad with a prayer that one of the posts may not be advertised particularly which he is holding and that his case to the exclusion of all others be sent to the Public Service Commission for determining the suitability and in case he fails, his services be terminated. In support of his contention and prayed relief he relied upon two judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as PLJ 2002 SC 1220 and 2004 SCMR 630.
Before adverting to these two judgments it is pertinent to mention here that the Federal Government of Pakistan and some Provincial. Governments regularized the appointments of many of the ad-hoc employees and they are working on regular basis as far as our own study of the legal reports from Pakistan jurisdiction reveals. The position in Azad Jammu & Kashmir is different and the regularization Act of ad-hoc appointees has been set aside by this Court in the case reported as Azad Govt. & others us. Muhammad Yunas Tahir & others [1994 SCR 341], wherein the findings of the High Court striking down the Regularization Act of 1992 have been approved and the appeals filed by the Azad -Jammu & Kashmir Government and many other ad-hoc appointees were dismissed. Therefore, admittedly the service of the appellant cannot be regularized by the Government or the competent authority, on the basis of legislative enactment or a notification or order issued by the Government under Section 22 of the Civil Servants Act, 1976. Similarly the High Court or for that matter even this Court cannot regularize his service and the prayer to that extent, stands rejected. On the contrary the fact recorded with concern is that the Government of Azad Jammu & Kashmir or for that matter, the Electricity Department is keeping the appellant in service for the last 14 years despite repeated judgments recorded by this Court. Similarly this Court cannot allow non-implementation of its judgments particularly where a point of law has been enunciated.
In this view of the matter it appears appropriate for us to address the grievance of the appellant in the light of the judgment relied upon by him in the High Court as well as before this Court. We may also add it here that there are some of the judgments recorded by the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court and this Court in some cases where it was brought to the notice of the High Court that although posts were held by the petitioners and they had also qualified the test and interview they were not recommended by the Public Service. Commission on the sole ground that less posts were sent to Public Service Commission, therefore, they couldn't be recommended. In this regard reference can beneficially be made to one of the lis decided by the High Court in the case titled Nasreen Azam vs. Public Service Commission & 3 others (Writ Petition No, 150/99, decided on 17.7.2000.
13. In the case reported as Dr. Naveeda Tufail & others vs. Govt. of Punjab & others [PLD 2002 SC 1220] the facts were that 73 petitions for leave to appeal were filed in the Supreme Court of Pakistan and placed before a full bench of the Court consisting of Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal, Mr. Justice Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Mr. Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, the learned Judges. The impugned findings were recorded in a consolidated judgment passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal on 13.5.2002 whereby 114 service appeals were disposed of. In the said case the Education Department, Government of Punjab, advertised the posts of Lecturers on 11.11.1995 and 13.11.1995 and constituted a Divisional Selection Board including the Subject Specialists for selection of suitable candidates and after assessing the eligibility as per criteria fixed for the post and after interview recommended the petitioners for ad-hoc appointment and on 21.12.1995. Ad-hoc appointment orders were issued with specific terms and conditions with as many as 13 terms and conditions enumerated in the appointment order. These conditions inter alia included Conditions No, 1, 4 and 5, which are reproduced as under:--
(i) In a purely temporary capacity for a period not exceeding one year and shall automatically be terminated on the expiry of the said period of one year unless extended by prior orders/on the arrival of selected of the Punjab Public Service Commission whichever is earlier or upto the date on permanent incumbent of the post resume duty.
(ii) ......................
(iii) .....................
(iv)You will have to compete before the Public Service Commission with other candidates in accordance with the rules as and when the post is advertised by the commission if you do not compete before the commission no extension would be granted in adhoc appointment.
(v) The adhoc appointment will not confer any right of regular appointment to the same post nor the service will be counted towards seniority.
14. The ad hoc appointment of the incumbents continued without any break till their termination order which was 'issued on 5.8.2000. The petitioners challenged the termination orders through constitutional petitions which were dismissed on the sole ground of bar of jurisdiction contained in Article 212 on the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The appeal to the Supreme Court met the same fate. Ultimately they filed service appeals before Punjab Service Tribunal which were dismissed and as stated earlier, 73 petitions for leave to appeal were placed before the full bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. It was pleaded before the Supreme Court that the employment in Government Department is a public employment and it being a source of livelihood is attached with the right of life which is not a bounty of the authorities and cannot be allowed to hang in their hands. On the strength of a judgment of the Supreme Court of India reported as Dehli Transport Corporation vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congross AIR 1991 SC 101] it was contended that employment is a source of income, therefore, right of work is. a fundamental right under the terms of Article 18 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which right cannot be taken away, at the will of the Government authorities. The next point placed before the Supreme Court for sympathetic consideration was that the petitioners, on account of continuous retention in service on ad hoc basis, have a considerable right, would bring them at par to the regular employees and their termination from service without notices would not be proper and that their employment for such a long time without break would create legitimate expectancy of confirmation/permanent appointment as the policy of continuity despite having no statutory backing would be recognized in law. Another point forcefully urged was that under similar circumstances the Federal Government as well as the Government of the provinces except Punjab have confirmed the policies through enactment for regularization and their employees who were appointed on ad hoc basis during the period mentioned therein through the Public Service Commission but the Government of Punjab by not framing such policy discriminated the petitioners by terminating them without providing the opportunity of regularization as all the petitioners have worked for more than 6 years on ad hoc basis and some of them had remained so for more than one decade, the rule of equal treatment as a public policy would demand their regularization to save them from unemployment as the service is their sole source of livelihood. In the light of these arguments the Supreme Court of Pakistan after referring to the case law for and against the proposition and some steps taken by the executive Government particularly during the Martial Law regime, in Paras 1 and 12 captions "B" and "C" held as under:-- 11. The concept of regularization of adhoc employees is evident from; the above referred policies of the Federal Government and in the light of these precedents, the petitioners would be justified to ask for regularization. We have been informed that the petitioners have served on adhoc basis for a number of years without break and some of them were in service as adhoc employees since long. The employment for a common person is the source of livelihood and right of livelihood is an undeniable right to a person. If the work is the sole source of livelihood of a person, the right to work shall not be less than a fundamental right which should be given protection accordingly. Therefore, the petitioners who have served the education department for such a long period, would deserve to be given fair chance of regularization in the given situation. The learned Advocate General, Punjab, without offering any explanation of keeping the petitioners in service on adhoc basis for such a long period and not fulfilling the vacancies on regular basis, submitted that in absence of policy of regularization, certain concessions, as mentioned in the reply submitted on behalf of the respondents before the Tribunal, were given to the petitioners to appear before the Public Service Commission for selection with direct recruits but except a few none has availed this opportunity.
The learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage has submitted that if the cases of the petitioners are referred to the Public Service Commission for regularization in the light of policy of regularization of the Federal Government, they shall be satisfied.
12. We having examined the above scheme find that in the similar circumstances, the Federal Government while giving fair treatment to its employees appointed on adhoc basis successively framed policies for regularization through the process of selection. by the Public Service Commission. It is stated that all Provincial Governments, except Government of Punjab, following the Federal Government also adopted the policy of regularization and gave their employees the equal treatment. The petitioners, being adhoc employees of Provincial Government, cannot claim regularization as of right in the light of policy of Federal Government but the principle of equality as embodied in Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, would demand that they while facing the similar circumstances, should be treated in the same manner. The principle of equality would implied be attracted in favour of the petitioners as they being adhoc lecturers in the Provincial Government, would stand at par to that of the adhoc employees of the Federal Government and, therefore, it would be fair, just and proper to consider their cases for regularization. We having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Maqbool Ellahi Malik, the learned Advocate General Punjab, assisted by Mr. Tariq Mehmood Khokhar, Additional Advocate General, are of the view that since substantial questions of public importance are involved in the present petitions, therefore, the technical objection that the questions not raised before the Tribunal, cannot be allowed to be raised before this Court, is not entertained. The authorities in the education department, Government of Punjab, while adopting the method of adhoc appointments as a continuous policy, created a legitimate expectancy in the mind of petitioners for their retention on regular basis and therefore, we deem it proper to direct that the. respondents while seeking guidance from the scheme of regularization of adhoc employees of Federal Government referred above, will initiate the process of regularization of the petitioners through Punjab Public Service Commission giving the concession as mentioned in the reply filed by the respondents in the Punjab Service Tribunal within a period of one month and meanwhile without prejudice to the rights of selectees of the Public Service Commission for appointment on regular basis, the posts which were being held by the petitioners shall not be filled. It is clarified that the cases of the petitioners shall be sent separately to the Public Service Commission and shall not be tagged with the direct recruits. In case any of the petitioners is not found suitable by the Public Service Commission, he shall not be entitled to be retained in service."
15. Similarly in a case reported as Water & Power Development Authority through Chairman, WAPDA House, Lahore vs. Abbas Ali Malano & another [2004 SCMR 630] again a full bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan while dismissing the appeal approved the judgment delivered by the Federal Service Tribunal. The facts which culminated into the authoritative judgment in the case were that respondents, therein, applied against the available several posts in the year 1989 through Placement Bureau established by the Prime Minister Secretariat for providing employment to the deserving persons in various departments. The respondents being highly qualified were found suitable and were selected on ad hoc basis for .a period of 6 months as Assistant Directors (Administration) condition was imposed that their appointment would be subject to .heir qualifying prescribed competitive examination as and when held and in case of failure their services had to be terminated without any notice. They qualified the test/interview as per condition for confirmation. The orders were, however, superseded by order dated 14.7.1990 and although they were not relieved and were sent for extensive specialized job training course for 3 months in order to evaluate their performance on weekly basis. When the Government changed in August 1990, the Cabinet policy was changed and the recruitments made on the recommendation of the Placement Bureau were set aside and the services of those officials appointed were terminated treating them to be made on political grounds. The termination orders so issued also revealed that the respondents had not qualified the examination and interview on merits also. The full bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in this case as well observed in para 15 as under:--
15. In our opinion the case of respondents does not fall within any of the categories laid down by this Court in Human Rights rase as it is not the case of the petitioner that any of respondents either lacked requisite qualifications or were appointed by incompetent authority. On the contrary, the petitioner never organized the examination and finalized termination passed in 1998. It is also spelled out from the impugned judgment that the petitioner had been discriminated with other employees who were appointed in similar manner on ad hoc basis and were subsequently confirmed and regularized. Non-holding of examination/interview by the petitioner amounts to waiver and respondents should have been notified as confirmed. Irrespective of above, the respondents have served for 11 years and have thus accrued vested right of being regularised. The aspect where the authority was itself responsible for making irregular appointment on temporary basis, subsequently turned down and terminated their services on the ground that the same was made in violation of the rules has not been appreciated by this Court particularly when the appointees fulfilled the requisite qualifications. In this context, reference can be made to the cases of this Court reported as Secretary to Government of N.W.F.P., Zakat/Social Welfare Department, Peshawar and another v. Sadullah Khan 1996 SCMR 413 and Director, Social Welfare, N.W.F.P., Peshawar v. Sadullah Khan 1996 SCMR 1350."
16. The facts of captioned two reports of the Supreme Court of Pakistan are identical to the facts of the appeal before us. The appellant is admittedly a Gold-Medallist in the subject of B.Sc. Electrical Engineering which subject is admittedly an exact science having wider scope in this zone, ideal for production of hydroelectricity. His ability and competency cannot, therefore, be disputed. This fact is vouchsafed and confirmed by repeated recommendations by the Chief Engineer Electricity through written recommendations for his confirmation. Admittedly he has crossed the upper age limit. He is holding the post for the last 14 years, therefore, there appears no justification to dismiss his writ petition and allow him to retain the post of Sub-Divisional Officer. Similarly a right has come to rest in him to consider his case to further the cause of doing complete justice which jurisdiction is vested in this Court. We, therefore, order accordingly in the last para of this judgment and before that we reiterate our time and again recorded findings and approved by the superior Courts of the Sub-Continent that we do not entertain any cavil to the proposition that an ad hoc employee has no right to hold the post beyond the period for which he is appointed. The Government is not also competent to allow continuance of ad hoc appointment for number of years. The ad hoc appointment is an appointment of a duly qualified person made in respective method of recruitment. The ad hoc appointment or stop-gap arrangement is a temporary measure for a particular period of time which doesn't confer any right on the incumbent for regular appointment or to hold it for indefinite period. The ad hoc appointment by its very nature is transitory and creates no right with lapse of time. The appointing authority cannot also disregard rules and allow the incumbents to continue with his service. The Government or for that matter any competent authority must realize that the appointment in the public sector is a trust in the hands of public authorities and they are not only bound by law but morally obliged to discharge their functions and take steps to make transparent appointments out of the candidates, on merit and without parochial wave or political affiliations.
17.The nutshell of above is that we recall the judgment recorded by the High Court and by accepting the appeal direct as under:- The case of the appellant shall be sent by the Electricity Department to the Public Service Commission separately which shall not be tagged with any other candidate to determine suitability of the appellant. The Public Service Commission shall recommend his case for regular appointment to the Government if he fulfils the laid down criteria, which means passing of test and interview. In case he is not found suitable by the Public Service Commission, he shall not be entitled to be retained in service and the order recorded by this Court that one of the posts reserved for Muzaffarabad shall not be advertised, shall be sent by the Department to the Public Service Commission for selection of a suitable candidate on merit.
This finding has been recorded keeping in view the peculiar circumstances and facts of the case in hand. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.