' BRIG. ABDUR RASHID S I (M) (RETD.), (MEMBER).-The appellant, Mr. A. D. Pervez joined the Pakistan National Centre (PNC) in 1964. In the meantime, the Directorate-General of the PNC having been governmentalized was declared an attached Department of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of Pakistan with effect from 23rd June, 1975. It may be recalled that in 1964 the PNC had been originally created as the Pakistan Council for National Integration and registered under the Cooperative Societies Act and remained so till 22nd June, 1975. On 24th September, 1975 the appellant was assigned the duties of the Assistant Resident Director Incharge (Grade-17) of the PNC, Islamabad vide Office Order No, PF-69.714, dated 11th of October, 1975. The appellant was promoted as Resident Director (NPS-18) in the PNC with effect from 16th March, 1977 vide Office Order No, Admn. 1 (6)/Estt. Dated 24th March, 1977.
2. On 10th June, 1978 Office Order No, PF-347 was issued by the Director, Establishment, PNC Directorate-General which said that the appellant, A. D. Pervez, Resident Director, PNC, Islamabad, would stand reverted to the post of Assistant Resident Director (Grade-17) with effect from 27th June, 1978, the date when Mr. Ahmad Faraz joins as Resident Director PNC, Sialkot, though he (the appellant) would continue as Officer-in-Charge of PNC, Islamabad in Grade-17. (Mr. Ahmad Faraz, it may be mentioned, was reverting from the Academy of Letter where he was bolding a Grade-20 assignment on deputation).
3. The Office Order No, F-2-6/Estt./77, dated 6th/8th July 1978 finally reverting the appellant said : "Mr. A. D. Pervez, Resident Director, PNC, Islamabad stands reverted. He shall work as Assistant Resident Director, PNC, Islamabad."
4. The appellant, after his reversion, made a petition to the Director-General of PNC on 8th July, 1978 but having heard nothing in reply, came before the Tribunal where his plaint was registered on 5th December, 1978.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant based his case on the following law points. First and foremost, the appellant, a civil servant held a permanent post, defined as a post "sanctioned without limit of time" vide section 2 (e) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and that he could not be reverted in the manner in which he had been. Second, reversion being a reduction and a major penalty as defined under _section 4 (6) (i), Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973, the inquiry procedure as laid down vide section 5 of the said Act had to be adhered to in the instant case which had not been done and hence the nullity of action against the appellant. Third, there were two vacancies of Grade 18 available in the PNC when the appellant was reverted and that he could have been adjusted against anyone of them. One vacancy was that of the Director, Finance and the other had been caused by the resignation of Mr. Irfan Mohammad Khan on 30th May, 1978.
6. The learned State counsel, however, argued that the appellant being the junior most Resident Director had to be reverted because of the repatriation of Mr. Ahmad Faraz. Since there was no punishment attached to this reversion, the question of having a recourse to the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973 did not arise. The said learned counsel by way of reinforcing his case challenged the very promotion of the appellant to Grade 18 by saying that when the appellant was promoted on 16th March, 1977, the PNC had already been governmentalized. In the absence of any appropriate rules for appointments/promotions after govern mentation a Selection Board which had been created (by order of the then Chairman, PNC, dated 4th April, 1975) consisting of the Additional Secretary (Information), Prime Minister's Secretariat (Public), Additional Secretary (Admn,), Information and Broadcasting Division and Joint Secretary (Budget). Information and Broadcasting Division for the purpose of selecting suitable candidates for appointments as Assistant Directors and. Directors in the PNC continued to function.
Despite this laid down procedure, the appellant was promoted to Grade 18 without going through this Selection Board and hence the untenability of his promotion, argued the learned State Counsel.
Even if we ignore the 4th April, 1975 Selection Procedure, once the PNC was governmentalized on 23rd June, 1975, the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 clearly became applicable, said the learned State counsel. The learned State counsel argued further that the PNC Directorate-General Appointment, Promotion and Transfer Rules notified on 3rd December, 1980 laid down that an Assistant Director must have completed 5 years in Grade 17 before being considered for the appointment of Director (Grade 18) and since the appellant had been promoted from Grade 17 to Grade 18 in less than 18 months, the said promotion was irregular. The plea of the appellant that there were two Grade 18 vacancies at the time of his reversion, was also challenged by the learned State counsel by saying that the appellant could not be appointed as Director, Finance which was an ex-cadre vacancy and even though Irfan Mohammad Khan (who had been absent), resigned on 30th May, 1978, his resignation was not accepted till November, 1978. Hence there were no Grade 18 vacancies available to accommodate the appellant.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant while arguing further, among others, made the following points. First, there were no rules in the PNC as per rule 3 sub-rule (2), Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973. Such Rules came into being for the first time on 3rd December, 1980 with no retrospective effect. Second, the then Secretary, Establishment note dated 24th May, 1976, delegated the then Prime Minister's authority for posts in Grades 17 to 20 to the Adviser incharge of the PNC who was competent to promote the appellant to Grade 18 and third, the appellant had been promoted regularly against a permanent post as would be revealed by the promotion order dated 24th March, 1977.
8. Having carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents and having consulted the relevant record in this case, we have come to the following conclusions. The appellant, Mr. A. D. Pervez was promoted as Assistant Director (Security) in Grade 17 vide Office Order No, Admn. 1(8)/Estt., dated 30th May, 1975. (His appointment as Assistant Resident Director came about on 23rd September, 1975 as mentioned). At that time the PNC was an autonomous body outside the orbit of Government rules and regulations. The governmentalisation notification of the PNC dated 23rd June ,1975 by the Establishment Division, inter alia, said that the Information and Broadcasting Division, Islamabad, would initiate immediate action with regard to the framing of recruitment rules for various posts in the PNC in consultation with Establishment Division and that the regularisation of the appointments of existing staff of the PNC would be carried out in the light of the recruitment rules that may be framed. (It took the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting approximately fiveand-a-half years to frame these rules which were notified on 3rd December, 1980. Nothing, whatever, has been done so far, as to the regularization of appointments of the existing staff of the PNC even though more than a year has elapsed). The appellant was promoted with effect from 16th March, 1977 vide Chairman, PNC (Pir Ali Muhammad Rashdi) note which may be quoted in full : "Mr. A. D. Pervez who has been incharge of Islamabad Centre as Assistant Resident Director for several years is hereby promoted to Grade 18 and appointed Resident Director, Islamabad in recognition of his years' long service in the most sensitive Centre like Islamabad where many of his predecessors had failed".
At the time of this promotion, no rules existed vide rule 3, sub-rule (2) of Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973. Therefore, the promotion rules as laid down by the then Chairman, PNC vide order dated 4th April, 1975 held sway. There is no evidence whatever that any selection procedure was gone through (as suggested in the order of 4th April, 1975) in this case and hence the irregularity of this promotion. This appointment/promotion of the appellant will, therefore, be deemed to have been made on ad hoc basis. As per section 2 (a) of A the Civil Servants Act, 1973, "ad hoc appointment means appointment of a duly qualified person made otherwise than in accordance with the prescribed method of recruitment pending recruitment in accordance with such method".
9. In accordance with section 12 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 : "A civil servant appointed to a higher post or grade on ad hoc, temporary or officiating basis shall be liable to reversion to his lower post or grad 9 without notice." The appellant holding an ad hoc appointment could therefore, be reverted.
10. In view of the foregoing paragraphs, the order of reversion of the appellant is upheld and the .
11. No order as to costs.
12. Parties to be informed accordingly.