SHAFI-UR-RAHMAN, J.-The question of law of public importance requir--ing examination in these two service appeals under Article 212 (3) of the Constitution is whether notwithstanding their regular appointments being subsequent to the appellants, respondents Nos. 2 to 22 could claim seniority over the appellants on the strength of this Court's judgment in civil appeal No. 43 of 1973 (PLD 1971 SC 846) and in derogation of rule 9 (2) of West Pakistan Agricultural Engineering Services (Clases II) Rules, 1963.
2. The West Pakistan Agricultural Engineer Services (Class II) Rules, 1963 (here in after referred to as the Rules) were enforced on 18-6-1963. These were made applicable to "posts of Assistant Agricultural Engineers, and such other equivalent posts in the Department as may be determined from time to time". (Rule 3 (2). Seventy-five percent of the vacancies were to be filled by initial recruitment on the recommendations of the Commission (Rule 5 (a)) and the remaining twenty- five percent of the vacancies were to be "filled by selection on merit with particular reference to fitness for higher responsibilities from among persons holding posts of Foreman, Supervisors, Training instructors and power drillers of the Department in the Region" subject to qualification prescribed. (Rule 5 (b). For initial recruits a degree in Mecha--nical or Agriculture Engineering or a degree in Agriculture with a diploma in Agriculture Engineering was necessary. The rules also made provision for determining inter se seniority of direct recruits, of promotees, and of direct recruits and promotees. As difficulty was experienced by the Govern--ment in making initial recruitment satisfying the requirement of rule 7, the Governor on Ist June 1965 approved a Scheme under which Public Service Commission was authorized to select by interview only 46 candidates who were at least B. Sc. (Agri.) IInd Division for training as Assistant Agriculture Engineers for a period of two years after successfully completing which they were to be on probation for one year. The respondents 2 to 22 are such selectees who were ultimately on disintegration allocated to Punjab.
As these selectees were nearing completion of their Diploma Course, they were informed by the Government that they would have to appear again before the Public Service Commission for selection for appointment to the posts of Assistant Agriculture Engineers (Class Ill. They were also informed that the posts of Assistant Agricultural Engineers (Class II) would be readvertised. The selectees challenged this move and ultimately the matter came to the Supreme Court in the case of Mukhtar Ahmad and 37 others v. Government of West Pakistan (P L D1971 SC 846). This Court in July 1971 while upholding of the selectees claim held that---
(a) the departure made by the Governor's order of the Ist June, 1965 as regards selection for training and eventual appointment as Assistant Agricultural Engineers amounted to a special rule of recruitment governing these 46 posts only;
(b) such selectees "having been selected for training and appointment in accordance with the aforesaid order of the Governor, they are entitled to be appointed as Assistant Agricultural Engineers, they having successfully completed the diploma course in the meantime;
(c) the Government offered in unmistakable terms to appoint the appellants as Assistant Agricultural Engineers on their successful com--pletion of the diploma course and this offer was accepted by the appellants . . . . . . This agreement is capable of being enforced in law. The Government was both competent and obliged to implement that agreement
(d) the Government could avoid this commitment only if "the posts are abolished or reduced for any valid reason or not otherwise available say, on account of abolition of the department itself but this did not give the Government an absolute choice to appoint or not to appoint the appellants even if they succeeded in obtaining diploma."
The relief granted to these selectees was "a declaration that the appellants have satisfied the terms and conditions laid down by the Government for their appointment as Assistant Agricultural Engineers and are, therefore, entitled to be appointed as such and that they are not required to appear again before the Public Service Commission for fresh interview for selection for such appointments".
3. While implementing this decision of the Court the Government by a notification of July 1971 appointed on regular basis 17 such trainees who were already holding ad hoc appointments of Assistant Agricultural Engineers from various dates in November 1968. Eight others were offered the appointment on 17-3-1972. The Government in consultation with the Public Service Commission refixed the seniority of all such recruits on the basis of the result of the training course alone ignoring and in substitution of the initial order of merit assigned by the Public Service Commission.
4. The five appellants in the two appeals fall in two distinct categories and it is not possible in any discussion of their case to ignore this distinction. The first three appellants held the posts of Foreman or Supervisors and as such were eligible on satisfying the other conditions to be promoted under rule 5 (b) of the Rules. Appellants 4, 5 were not so placed. They were serving in the Thai Development Authority till its dissolution on 30-6-1970. As from 1-7-1970 they were transferred along with their posts to the Agricul--ture Departments on terms specified by Governor as follows :- "(i) They will, stand appointed against the posts they are already holding with the possibility of promotion etc. As if in their own line of the defunct organization.
(ii) The subsequent enhancement of the prescribed qualifications etc., if any, will not adversely affect the interests of those already appointed and promoted in accordance with the minimum qualifications prescribed for respective posts in the defunct Thal Development Authority.
(iii) Their pay will have to be fixed on the basis of continuous service in the grade/consolidated scale with increment on usual dates.
(iv) They shall be treated as new entrants for the benefits of pension and G. P. Fund, group insurance and all other amenities/facilities admissible to Government servants."
These two appellants however claimed that they were appointed Assistant Engineers in Thal Development Authority on 5-1-1962 and 23-1-1963 respectively.
5. The first three appellants were promoted as Assistant Engineers in 1965. Their promotion orders were for six months after which these appoint--ments were to lapse unless renewed. It appears that these were renewed either before time or ex post facto almost continuously for periods of six months till April 1969 when they were regularly appointed on promotion to the posts of Assistant Engineers. The promotion orders which issued from 1965 to 1968 described their promotion as "on temporary basis" or by way of "stop-gap arrangement" or as "pending final recruitment by Commission" or as "ad hoc". It was also expressly stated in these promotion orders that such temporary promotion will confer no right or title to the posts and the promotees shall not have any claim to seniority on the basis of such orders passed purely in the interest of administration. The Department issued three provisional seniority lists of the Assistant Agricultural Assistants. The first one is dated 1-7-1971, the second one is dated 31-12-1974 and the third one is dated 31-12-1976. In these lists the first three appellants were shown senior to the other two appellants and all the appellants were shown senior to respondents 2 to 22. The period of ad hoc appointment of that group of respondents who were appointed in November, 1958 was ignored and their seniority in service was reckoned from the first order already referred to and made by Government while implementing the decision of this Court in July, 1971. The other group of respondents which received appointment for the first time in March, 1972 or soon thereafter was allowed to reckon their seniority from the dates they took over pursuant to the orders of their appointment. The seniority lists were objected to by some of the respondents and the objection was dealt with and disposed of by the Services and General Administration Department Punjab in consultation with the Law Department with the following operative decision; "Consequently, the questions for consideration are-
(a) Whether in compliance with the directives contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court, the representations concerned could be treated to have been/ or were required to be appointed on regular basis w. e. f. The dates immediately falling after the clearance of their examination viz. 11-6- 1968 and 13-8-1968; or
(b) They can be treated to have been appointed on regular basis :--
(i) w. e. f. The dates on which they were appointed on ad hoc basis in case of all those 17 selectees who were so appointed in the first instance, instead of their regular appointment from 18-3-1972 and
(ii) the remaining 7/8 selectees who were appointed on regular basis after 18-3-1972 (between 21- 3-1972 and 15-4-1972) should be treated to have been appointed on regular basis from the same dates because they had not earlier been appointed even on ad hoc basis.
SGA & I Department is of the view that since regular vacancies were available, dates of ad hoc appointment of these officers may be treated as the dates of their regular appointment. The question of their appointment prior to these dates cannot be raised at this stage for obvious reasons."
3. Law Department have since confirmed the views expressed above by the SGA & I Department as correct."
6. This very question as was before the Punjab Government also arose for consideration before the Sind Government on the representation of the selectees of the same batch, and in the background of the same decision of this Court, the decision of the Sind Government was as follows- "If the appointment of the agricultural engineers under reference is examined in the light of above provisions, it would appear that since they were selected by the Public Service Commission in accordance with the prescribed procedure, their appointment was regular rather than ad hoc in nature. Thus on reconsideration this Department's previous advice is modified to this extent.
The next question that arises for consideration is from what date their appointment was operative.
According to the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement in pursuance of which they were selected by the P. S. C., they were to be appointed as agricultural engineers on successful training for two years. Since the Supreme Court held in its judgment dated 29-10-1971 that they were entitled to be appointed as Assistant Agricultural Engineers, their appointment should take effect from the date of successful completion of their training. But instead they have been appointed to these posts with effect from 8-5-1973. The delay in notifying these appointments has not been (not legible) Courts judgment would be deemed to have been made from the date on which they successfully completed the training. To put the record straight the AD is advised to substitute the order dated 8-5-1973 by fresh order indicating their appointment to have been notified accordingly."
A formal notification pursuant to this opinion issued on 1-9-1980 and the seven officers concerned were given the dates of their appointments so of to coincide with the dates when they successfully completed the training, namely 10-6-1968 in the case of the first five and 12-8-1968 in the case of the other two. There was a reservation made in that appointment order in the following words --- "The above officers will not be entitled to the pay of the post of Assistant Agricultural Engineer against which they have not worked during the said intervening period."
The earlier opinion and orders at variance which had issued in 1973 were withdrawn by the Sind Government.
7. The respondents 2 to 22 on not getting appropriate relief from the Punjab Government moved a contempt petition in this Court but the same was ultimately withdrawn as being misconceived. The respondents thereafter filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal claiming that in terms of the Governor's order dated 1st of June, 1965 and rules applicable to them, they were entitled to be appointed from the date they successfully completed their training in terms of the conditions of service and failure of the Government to appoint them on regular basis from that date was a wrongful act and they could not be on the basis of such a wrongful act denied the tangible benefits appurtenant to such a right namely pay, seniority etc. There was another appeal before the tribunal filed by one of the respondents, Mukhtar Ahmed, which was limited to a controversy between respondents 2 to 22, namely, the direct recruits, with respect to refixation of their inter se seniority in consultation with the Public Service Commission on the basis of the result of the training examination in super session of the first order of merit transmitted by the Public Service Commission while selecting them for such training. The appellants claimed before the tribunal that in terms of rule 9 of the Rules which according to both the parties governed the determination of seniority, the respondents could not take their appoint--ment to a date earlier than their regular appointment which took place in the second half of 1971 or first half of 1972. The first three appellants on the other hand claimed that on the basis of that very rule 9, their seniority from the dates they started continuous officiation, in whatever capacity was, that is from February, 1965, and on that view of the matter claimed that they had to be treated, in any case, senior to the respondents; even if their view ultimately prevailed that their appointments had to be taken back to June and August, 1968 when they successfully completed their training course.
8. The Service Tribunal upheld the claim of the respondents that they were wrongfully kept out of service, that they were entitled to claim benefit of seniority from the date they became entitled to regular appointment and were wrongfully deprived of it. The first order of merit assigned by the Commission while selecting them was held to be inviolable and maintained.
9. In this manner there are now two appeals against the order of the Service Tribunal-one against allowing the claim of the respondents 2 to 22 seniority over the appellants, and the other allowing the appeal of Mukhtar Ahmed and restoring the seniority of direct recruits inter se as initially assigned by the Public Service Commission.
10. In view of this background of the controversy the questions which require determination in these appeals are whether respondents Nos. 2 to 22 shall reckon their seniority from the dates they actually received regular appointments in service or from the dates they became in law entitled to be appointed and were wrongfully denied the appointments. The second question which requires determination is whether the first three appellants can count the period of their ad hoc promotion, if continued and merged in regular appointment, for matching their seniority in service with the respondents.
11. We propose taking up the question of the nature and effect of ad hoc appointment first because it is common to the first three appellants and to some of the respondents. Their appointments as Assistant Engineers were expressed to be ad hoc, temporary, not conferring any right to seniority etc. The word "ad hoc" has the dictionary meaning of "for a particular object". The object as appearing from the appointment of the appellants as well as that of some of the respondents was that their appointments were made and were to last only as long as regular appointments in accordance with the prescribed Rules were not made. The moment the regular appointments in accordance with the procedure prescribed were made, such appointments were to terminate. Ad hoc appointments truly so called being not in accordance with the Rules applicable to the service cannot receive either recognition o protection by reference to any of the Rules because they do not imply appoint--ments to the service as such. Such appointments being outside the purview of the rules cannot for any purpose be treated as conferring a benefit under the Rules. It follows that if the appellants and some of the respondents were truly ad hot appointees for a certain period they cannot on the basis of Rule claim their seniority from that date whether it was continuous or not.
12. As regards the first question requiring determination, the declarations granted by the Supreme Court in the earlier litigation to the respondents have been reproduced and are reproduced here only to emphasise the categorical and imperative nature of the declaration. It was as follows :--- "The appellants have satisfied the terms and conditions laid down by the Government for their appointment as Assistant Agricultural Engineers and are therefore entitled to be appointed as such and that they are not required to appear again before the Public Service Commission for their interview for selection for such appointments."
In the case of West Pakistan v. Fazal-e-Haq Mussarat (PLD 1960 SC 211) this Court in fairly strong words, which are reproduced here, expressed the effect of such a declaratory relief granted to Government servants in litigation with the Government. The observations relevant areas follows :- "We cannot but express our regret at the attitude evinced by the Depart--ment not only towards the respondent who had obtained a solemn judicial declaration that his removal from service was not sanctioned by law but also towards the Court and the decree which it had awarded in a proper and defended suit. Once a decision has been given by a Court of law, the State as a party to the proceedings, stands on no higher footing than an ordinary litigant and its duty to honour the Court's decree in the letter and the spirit, would be too obvious to require any emphasis from this Court. Indeed the State might be thought to have a higher and more direct responsibility in maintaining the authority of the Courts and that responsibility is clearly inconsistent with a deliberate design to avoid implementing a solemn decree awarded by a Court, which though declaratory in form, has its plain and unequivocal practical implications."
In the case of Province of Punjab v. Muhammad Ashraf (1973 SCMR 304) it was held that a civil servant who is wrongfully prevented from rendering service to State would be entitled to all the tangible benefits appurtenant to or arising out of the right infringed. In those cases it was a right to receive a remuneration. It must here be emphasized that seniority was indeed a right appurtenant to the right of appointment to the service and if the latter was infringed not only the Government was bound to rectify but also to offer necessary reparations. The right to seniority directly flows from the declaration that the selection of the respondents, was complete and that they were entitled to be inducted into service on successful completion of the training course.
12-A. The appellants have tried to urge that at the time when the respondents became entitled to appointment on the successful completion on the training course there were no posts available and as such it was within the powers reserved for the Government to deny them the appointment till such time as posts became available. Such an argument has been reject by the Tribunal and we consider rightly so because the Scheme envisaged appointment of 46 persons on All West Pakistan Basis. It necessarily followed that with the approval of the Scheme the required number of posts had t be created. The report of the Director showed that for Punjab there were 31 such posts available out of which 8 were for promotion and remaining for direct recruitment on the percentage formula. We also find the Government had demurred in making the appointments not on the ground that the posts were not available but because it wanted and proposed to readvertise the post and to have another selection through the Public Service Commission. If there were no posts what was to be advertised and how the respondents were called upon to reappear before the Public Service Commission. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal that it was not a case of want of vacancies which delayed the regular appointment of the respondents is amply justified.
13. On the view that we have taken on the two material questions appellants Nos. 1 to 3 will have no locus stands to challenge the inter se seniority of the direct recruits. The appellants Nos.4 and 5 are in no better position for another reason They did not become members of the service on any reasoning whatsoever before 1-7-1970. The rights of the respondent 2 to 22 stood established before 1-7-1970 and remained unaffected by their coming to the department with their posts.
14. We find no merit in these appeals and both are dismissed with no order as to costs.