' Rasool Bakhsh Malik has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Punjab Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, Martial Law Administrator, Zone 'A' Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 30-9-1977, whereby his services were terminated, be set aside and he be re-instated in service.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was selected as A-Class Tehsildar on ad hoc basis, over and above the sanctioned strength on 17th September, 1976. He was imparted 4 months training while the regular Tehsildar candidates had to undergo 2 years' training and also required to pass departmental examination to become a member of Tehsildari service. The appellant did not pass any examination and after undergoing training of 4 months, was appointed as additional Tehsildar along-with his counterpart. At the time of promulgation M.L.I.-21, his case was scrutinized.
He could not clear the oral test before the Punjab Public Service Commission; therefore his name was removed from the list of Tehsildari candidates w. e. f. 14th September, 1977. His review petition for restoration in service failed. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by Malik Azam Rasul and have perused the record of the case carefully with their assistance. The record reveals that the action against the appellant was taken under M. L. I. 21 and when he was found unfit by the P. S. C., his services were terminated. Nobody is present today on behalf of the appellant and the case is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution but I will also take into consideration the merits of the case as well. The law on this point has already been settled, through our various judgments that any action taken under M. L. I. 21 cannot be made subject of appeal before this Tribunal, High Court or the Supreme Court of Pakistan, in view of P.C.O. Of 1981. I do not find that any indiscrimination has been made in this case as his services were terminated after detailed security carried out in hi case in the light of M. L. I.
21. In view of the above I do not find an merit of this appeal which is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.