' Mr. Manzur Ahmad and 11 other clerks in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Headquarters, Irrigation, Sargodha have filed this appeal against the order dated 8th January, 1981 passed by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Sargodha whereby the appeal of Jeet Khan, another clerk in the same office, was accepted and thus his seniority over the appellants was restored. Jeet Khan (Respondent No, 3) had appealed to the Chief Engineer against the order of the S. E. Headquarters, dated 4th July, 1978 which had reduced him from the rank of Senior Clerk to that of Junior Clerk after he had been charge-sheeted and suspended for misconduct.
2. The appellants and respondent No, 3 had been working as Junior Clerks in the office of the S. E.
Hqs. When they came up for consideration for promotions by the relevant Departmental Promotion Committee. The D. P. C., after scrutinizing the record, approved appellants No, 1 to 4 for promotion as Senior Clerks and decided in the case of respondent No, 3 that he should be promoted on trial basis for one year, after which his case should be reconsidered. Consequently, the promotions were ordered vide office order dated 6th April, 1977. Some time later, respondent No, 3 was involved in the case in which he was charged with misconduct and the matter culminated in issue of order dated 4th July, 1978 reducing him in rank. Respondent No, 3 filed an appeal against this reversion with the Chief Engineer who passed the order impugned by the appellants and directed that his original seniority shall stand restored.
3. During the hearing of arguments in this case, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that Jeet Khan's promotion was for one year only and the Chief Engineer had no authority to extend it beyond 6th April, 1978 as he has done by passing the impugned order. Learned counsel cited four cases reported as 1981 C M R 715, 839, 469 and 310 to show that promotion ordered for a fixed period lapses on the due date. He also referred to para 2, part 3 of the Ministerial Services Code Rules, 1962, which provides that if a member of the cadre does not work satisfactorily during the period of probation he can be reverted or his service can be terminated. By all Courts the promotion of Respondent No, 3 recommended by the D. P. C. Was of ad hoc nature as his case was to be re-considered after the lapse of one year. On the other hand the learned D. A. And learned counsel for Respondent No, 3 controverted the appellants' arguments by contending that under the law, the appellants were precluded from making an appeal against promotion. It was submitted that Jeet Khan's promotion was not ad hoc because ad hoc appointment/promotion had been defined in the rules as appointment/promotion made by means other than the regular method. Respondent No, 3 had been promoted by the regular method, but the D. P. C. Was not within its right to recommend the promotion "on trial basis for one year" because there is no provision in law for 'trial' promotion, nor is there any provision to impose a condition of one year for a promotion, unless a civil servant is placed on probation which was not done in the instant case.
4. After hearing the detailed arguments of the parties, I am of the view that in the first place, the D.
P. C. Or the competent authority could not impose the condition 'on trial basis for one year' on Jet Khan's promotion because, as pointed out by learned counsel opposing the appeal, there are no rules which cater for such an extra ordinary condition. I have respectfully considered the four authorities cited b learned Counsel for the appellant but none of these deals with 'trial promotion' and in none of these the civil servant concerned was to be reconsidered after the period fixed for promotion. Respondent No, 3 was not on probation, therefore the objection mad by learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of the Ministerial Service Cadre Rules does not hold well in this matter. And even if they were to be considered to be on promotion, under the rules he would stand confirmed in his promotion on expiry of two years, i. e. On 6th April, 1979. However, that is beside the point. The Chief Engineer was authorised to issue the order impugned in this appeal and the only flaw that could be found in it would be in the context of the recommendations of the D. P.
C. But I am convinced that the condition imposed on Jeet Khan's promotion as being 'on trial basis for one year' is not permissible by any rules. The D. P. C. Could either refuse to approve the promotion or, on the basis of record, postpone consideration for a certain period but it could not put a time limit on the promotion itself.
' In view of the above discussion I hold that the appeal is without merits. It is, therefore, dismissed as such.