1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-This order will dispose of Civil Petitions Nos. K-76 to K-80 of 1971, Civil Petitions Nos. K-34 of 1971 and K-115 of 1971 in which common question of law is involved.
2. In Civil Petitions K-76, K-77, K-78 and K-80, the petitioners wise originally Overseers. They were, later on, promoted to the posts of S. D. Os and they have been holding these posts since then until their reversion orders were passed on the 29th December 1970 to their substantive posts. They filed suits for declaration and injunction challenging the orders of their reversion. The trial Court dismissed the application for temporary injunction on the 8th January 1971 and appeals were filed against this order and the learned Additional District Judge, by order dated the 2nd February 1971, accepted the appeals and granted temporary injunction till the decision of the suits. The respondents challenged this order in the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, Karachi and a learned Single Judge of the High Court, by judgment dated the 24th May 1971, allowed all the revision petitions filed by the respondents and set aside the order of injunction passed by the Additional District Judge, Hyderabad.
3. In Civil Petition No. K-79 of 1971, the petitioner was an Overseer. He was promoted as officiating Sub- Divisional Officer and was reverted by notification dated the 27th October 1970.
4. In Civil Petition No. K-34, the petitioner was confirmed as Ass1stant Registrar. He was promoted as Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society on temporary and ad hoc basis until further orders and he was posted as Deputy Registrar at Lahore. On the 10th March 1971 the petitioner was informed that he has been reverted to the post of Ass1stant Registrar, by order dated the 5th March 1971. He challenged this order in the Court of III Civil Judge, First Class, Karachi. His application for temporary injunction was dismissed on the 15th March 1971. His appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Karachi on the 25th March 1971. His revision petition in the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, Karachi, was dismissed on the 22nd April 1971.
5. In Civil Petition No. K-115 of 1971, the petitioner was an Overseer. He was promoted as officiating S. D.
6. O., in September 1962. He was reverted to the post of Overseer in November 1965. He was again promoted as officiating S. D. O. On the 15th December 1967. He was again reverted to his substantive post of Overseer. His reversion orders, however, were cancelled as he filed a civil suit and he continued to officiate as S. D. O. He has again been reverted by order dated the 29th December 1970. He challenged this order in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, and prayed for temporary injunction which was refused on the 8th January 1971. His appeal and revision were dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Hyderabad and the High court of Sind & Baluchistan respectively.
7. In all these petitions, the case of the petitioners is that the High Court should have either maintained the order of injunction or issued temporary injunction restraining the respondents from reverting the petitioners from their posts of S. D. Os. To that of Overseers. They, therefore, seek permission to file an appeal against the said order.
8. Mr. Khalid M. Ishaq, Mr. S. Nasiruddin and Mr. S. H. Rizvi, have argued the case on behalf of the petitioners. Their contention is that by notification dated the 28th February 1970, the petitioners have been confirmed on the posts held by them on that date. This notification reads as under :- "Every person appointed on ad hoc basis to any service or post under the rule-making authority of the Governor of West Pakistan whose appointment to such service or post has not been regularised for any reason shall, with effect from the date of this notification be deemed to have been regularly appointed to such service or post; provided that-
(i) such person has continuously served in such service or post as the case may be since 1st January 1968,
(ii) such person possesses the qualifications prescribed for such service or post, as the case may be at the time of his ad hoc appointment thereto,
(iii) such person has in the opinion of the West Pakistan Public Service Commission, a satisfactory record of service,
(iv) such person has not been previously rejected by the West Pakistan Public Service Commission for such service or post, except in the case of a person who could not be selected for want of a vacancy under the regional representation formula,
(v) such person was appointed in accordance with the ratio prescribed in the relevant rules for appointment by initial recruitment vis-a-vis promotion to such service or post, and
(vi) the West Pakistan Public Service Commission has in respect of the appointment or post held by such person not recommended any other person.: We have considered this notification and are of the opinion that unless evidence is recorded, prima facie, it is not possible to hold that the contention of the petitioners that they have been confirmed in their posts as S. D. Os. Or in other posts is correct.
9. The High Court has held that the petitioners were holding officiating posts and, therefore, their reversion to their substantive posts of Overseers cannot be, considered to be reduction in rank. This view is in accordance with the opinion expressed by this Court in several cases. In our opinion, the question whether the petitioners were holding officiating posts or temporary posts on ad hoc basis cannot be decided unless evidence is recorded in the cases. Prima facie, however, it is not possible to hold that the petitioners are not officiating as S. D. Os. Or in other capacities. We would, therefore, refrain from expressing any opinion on this aspect of the case.
10. The next contention of the petitioners that the High Court could not interfere in some of the cases under section 115, C. P. C. As the Additional District Judge has not committed any irregularity or illegality is also not well founded. The learned Additional District Judge failed to take into consideration the question of balance of convenience and irreparable injury. This Court in the case of Province of West Pakistan v. Malik Asghar Khan in Civil Appeal No. K-41 of 1970 has already held that -- "Issuance of temporary injunction to the Government Departments in respect of service matters is bound to d1sturb their working, and they should not ordinarily be issued unless there are compelling reasons to do so because balance of convenience ordinarily would not lie in disturbing the admin1st--rative arrangements of a Department."
11. It was further held as under :- "Again, there can be no question of any irreparable injury being caused to the respondent to his original jurisdiction in this case by refusing the temporary injunction to him as he carp claim a monetary compensation in case he succeeds in his suit and the orders of the appellant reverting the respondents to his original post of Forester are finally held as illegal and without jurisdiction by the competent Court."
12. The High Court has kept in mind the above principles and was perfectly justified in interfering with the order of the Additional District Judge. This principle is also applicable to other cases. We, therefore, do not consider these as fit cases for interference in our special jurisdiction.
13. We would, however, direct the trial Court to expedite the hearing of the cases and dispose them of within six months. We will further observe that any opinion made by the High Court on the merits of the case will not stand in the way of the Subordinate Courts to decide the dispute between the parties in accordance with law.
14. Subject to the above remarks the petitions are dismissed.