' SHAH KHAWAR, J.--- Brief facts of the case are that in the year 2011 a post of Senior Registrar Surgery in Nishtar Hospital, Multan was vacant to be filled through a process of Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC). Due to exigency and prolong process of selection through PPSC, the competent authority decided to fill said posts on ad hoc basis in terms of rule 22 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1974. After observing codal formalities and on the recommendation of selection committee, petitioner was appointed as Senior Registrar Surgery by the competent authority on ad hoc basis for a period of one year. Same process was resorted to by the respondents and vide order dated 15-3-2013 petitioner was again given extension. An application filed by petitioner to respondent No.2 was turned down regarding conversion of his appointment as Senior Registrar Surgery on contract basis and vide order dated 20-3-2012, petitioner was again appointed as Senior Registrar Surgery (BS-18) on ad hoc basis for a period of one year or till availability of regular incumbent/selectee of Punjab Public Service commission whichever is the earlier.
2. Through instant writ petition, petitioner has challenged the notification dated 29-4-2014 whereby consequent upon recommendations of departmental promotion committee as many as twenty eight doctors including respondent No.5 was promoted as Senior Registrar Surgery (BS-18) on acting charge basis with immediate effect. Said notification was endorsed vide impugned order dated 2-8-2014 whereby respondent No.5 upon promotion/appointment as Senior Registrar Surgery (BS-18) on acting charge basis was further adjusted in Surgical Unit-IV Nishtar Hospital, Multan against the post vacated by the petitioner on his relieving/terminating ad hoc appointment with immediate effect.
3. The petitioner vide office order dated 2-5-2014 was relieved/ terminated from ad hoc appointment as Senior Registrar Surgery and respondent No.5 was promoted/appointed on the same post.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the case reported in 2003 SCM R 291 "Dr. Naveeda Tufail and 72 others v. Government of Punjab and others" and contends that continuation of ad hoc appointment for considerable length of time would create an impression in the mind of employee that he was being really considered to be retained on regular basis. Further that, ad hoc appointment had created a legitimate expectancy in the mind of petitioner of his retention on regular basis.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 vehemently opposed this petition by contending that petitioner was performing duties as Senior Registrar Surgery on ad hoc basis which reflects from the order dated 20-3-2014 issued by respondent No.2. It is further contended that petitioner had no vested right to claim continuity in his ad hoc appointment as respondent No.5 along with twenty seven other doctors was recommended by the duly constituted departmental promotion committee and was promoted as Senior Registrar Surgery (BS-18) on acting charge basis. Reliance has been placed in the case reported in 2003 SCM R 291, Dr. Naveeda Tufail and 72 others v.
Government of Punjab and others" 1982 SCM R 46 "Ghulam Sarwar v. Province of Punjab" and PLJ 1998 Tr.C. (Services) 77 "Muhammad Ashraf v. Government of Punjab" wherein it is held that ad hoc appointment against the post in public sector is a stop-gap arrangement which is not a permanent characteristic of civil service. Ad hoc employee has no right to hold the post beyond the period for which he was appointed and does not confer any right on the incumbent for regular appointment. It is further contended that respondent No.5 had superior right over the petitioner as having been duly promoted by departmental promotion committee.
6. Heard.
7. Appointment letter dated 30-6-2011 issued by respondent No.2 is annexed by the petitioner which reflects that he was appointed as Senior Registrar Surgery (BS-18) on ad hoc basis in Nishtar Hospital, Multan for a period of one year or till availability of regular incumbent/ select of Punjab Public Service Commission, whichever is earlier with specific terms and conditions. After the promotion of respondent No.5 along with twenty seven other doctors, on the recommendation of departmental promotion committee, a vested right has been accrued in favour of respondent No.5.
This is a recognized practice that an incumbent could be promoted to the higher scale on availability of a vacant post. Admittedly the post of Senior Registrar Surgery (BS-18) was vacant .
Which was occupied by the petitioner as a stopgap arrangement. Respondent No.5 after having been promoted by the DPC was adjusted against the same which did not infringe any of the fundamental rights of the petitioner.
8. It is also to be noted that there is great difference in ad hoc appointment and appointment by promotion on acting charge basis. The word "ad hoc" itself reflects that an incumbent is holding the charge as stopgap arrangement as the vacant seat is not filled up through due process. In the same manner, word "acting charge" has wider connotation. A person performing duties on acting charge basis exercises full powers of the office and could not be considered to be appointed on the basis of as stopgap arrangement. Promotion of respondent No.5 against the post of Senior Registrar Surgery (BS-18) is considered to be regular appointment. The petitioner could not claim continuation of his ad hoc appointment against the post in presence of promotion of respondent No.5 by the duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee as approved by the competent authority.
9. The petitioner could not make out a case, where he, could claim a vested right to be retained on ad hoc basis in place of respondent No.5. The instant writ petition being not competent is declined in above terms.