' The appellant, whose basic appointment in the Railway administration is of a sweeper, was directed, by order of the Divisional Medical Officer, Karachi, by his letter, dated 21st July, 1979, to work for one week on trial basis as Ambulance Driver. The appellant is said to have worked as ambulance driver till 16th March, 1980, when he was directed by the Sub-Assistant Medical Officer to revert back to his original post of Kotri. The appellant challenged this order by way of a grievance petition before the learned VIth Labour Court, but his grievance petition was dismissed on the ground that no right of the appellant had been infringed. The appellant has accordingly come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
2. It was contended by Mr. Yawar Hussain, the learned representative for the appellant, that the learned Labour Court was mistaken in holding that the appellant was a civil servant as in fact the appellant was excluded from the definition of civil servant, as given in the Railway Civil Servants Act. The decision of the learned Labour Court, however, does not proceed on the basis that the appellant is a civil servant. The reference in the impugned decision to a civil servant is in connection with the facts of the case reported in 1965 PLC 62, which was the case of a civil servant.
3. Mr. Yawar Hussain was unable to satisfy me that the appellant had a vested right to be appointed as or to continue to hold the post of driver of an ambulance. The order of the Divisional Medical Officer merely required the appellant to work for one week, on a trial basis, as a driver of an ambulance. He was not appointed as an ambulance driver The mere fact that the appellant continued to drive the ambulance for about 7 months conferred no right upon him to hold the post of driver of the ambulance. As such, no right of the appellant was infringed which, entitled him to file a grievance petition.
4. It may also be pointed out that the licence held by the appellant entitled him only to drive a motor car, delivery van and light transport vehicle and not an ambulance. As such, the driving of an ambulance by the appellant would appear contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965. Even, if the licence of the appellant can somehow be considered to entitle the appellant to drive an ambulance, then also, as already pointed out, the appellant had no vested right to the post of driver of an ambulance, as he was asked to drive the ambulance purely on a temporary and trial basis.
5. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would concur in the decision of the learned Labour Court and dismiss the appeal in limine.