These seven revision petitions have been filed by Province of Sind through Secretary, Communication and Works Department, Karachi. They are directed against a common judgment of Mr. B. J. Jakhrani, 2nd Additional District Judge, Hyderabad dated 2nd February 1971, whereby accepting the appeals of respondents-plaintiffs, he set aside the order of Mr. Dhani Buz A. D., learned Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad dated 8th January 1971 and granted interim injunction to the respondents-plaintiffs against the present petitioner, restraining him from reverting them from officiating posts of Sub-Divisional Officers to the posts of Overseers.
2. Briefly the facts of these petitions, are that they were originally selected for training as Overseers and after completion of necessary course they were appointed as Overseers and confirmed in due course of time to the posts. They were later on promoted to the posts of officiating S. D. Os. and they have been holding these posts since then until their reversion order was passed by the petitioner dated 29th December 1970 to their substantive posts of Overseers. The plaintiff Muhammad Hashim claims to have been promoted as S. D. 0. in his officiating capacity from 8-9- 1951 and he continues to work as such. Plaintiff Abdul Razak was promoted as officiating S. D. 0. on 15-10-1953. He however was reverted on 3-6-1959, he was again, according to him, promoted on 14-12-1961. He further claims to have crossed the efficiency bar. The case of plaintiff Mashkoor Khan is that he was promoted as officiating S. D. O. on 17-7-1963 but subsequently he was reverted due to lack of vacancy. However, he was again promoted on 23-10-1964 and continued to hold that post. Plaintiff Mazhar Mohammad Khan submits that he was promoted in November 1969 and continued to hold that post until his reversion orders. Plaintiff Ali Raza had been promoted as officiating S. D. 0. on 20-4-1959 and continued in this capacity as such. The case of plaintiff Azharul Hague is that he was promoted in August 1963 as officiating S. D. 0. and continued in that capacity.
The case of plaintiff Agha Mazhar Ali is that he was promoted as officiating S. D. 0. in September 1962. He claims to have been sent for one year training in N. E. D. College, and posted again as S. D.
O. on 10-6-1964, however, he contends that he was reverted to the post of Overseer in November 1965. Later on a pro forma promotion to the post of S. D. O. was given to him on 15-12-1967. He was again reverted to his substantive post of Overseer but after filing a Civil suit, according to him, his reversion orders were later on cancelled by the petitioner and his pro forma promotion continued.
3. As a common order of petitioner dated 29th December 1970, reverting all the respondents from their officiating posts of S. D. 03. to their substantive posts of Overseers has been challenged before the two Courts below, as before this Court common questions of law and facts are involved, and these questions were dealt with in single judgment by the lower Courts they will be disposed of by me by a single judgment accordingly.
4. The respondents-plaintiffs filed suits for declaration and injunction before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad. Their application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. for temporary injunction however, was rejected by the trial Court, however, they succeeded in appeal in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Hyderabad. His this judgment dated 2nd February 1971 has been challenged before me. The main grounds of attack against this judgment by the petitioner are: (i)That the learned lower Appellate Court has seriously erred in observing that 'the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff are, comparatively more sound and plausible'. It is submitted that it was not a question of comparative soundness, as much as the legal position that governed the facts and issues in the case. The learned lower appellate Court has failed to apply its mind to the provisions of law and rules applicable in the case.
(ii)That the learned appellate Court below has erred in relying on the West Pakistan Civil Services Rules and the Sind Civil Services Rules in the manner stated in the order. The said provisions have been misconceived, misconstrued and misapplied to the facts of the case. The said rules are applicable to the case of persons, who are regularly appointed in accordance with the rules 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the West Pakistan Services of Civil Engineers (Building and Roads) (Class II) Rules, 1967.
The case of the respondent-plaintiff was not covered by the said rules and as such the question of their application did not arise. The respondent-plaintiff was merely holding the charge of the post of Sub-Divisional Officer on ad hoc basis purely as a stop-gap-arrangement till the appointment of an incumbent in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid rules. The respondent-plaintiff by holding the charge of the post under the above circumstances, for number of years was not invested with any legal right to hold the post on regular basis and his reversion did not amount to reduction in rank.
(iii)That the learned Appellate Court below has seriously erred in construing the order dated 2-3- 1963 and had misapplied the same to the case of the respondent-plaintiff. The said order only declares non-gazetted posts of Sub-Divisional Officers as Gazetted posts and not the persons holding the post.
(iv)That the learned Appellate Court below has gravely erred in construing and applying the notification dated 28th February 1970. The learned Court has failed to take into consideration clauses (iii), (v) of the said notification which disentitle the respondent/plaintiff from pressing into the said notification.
(v)That the learned Appellate Court below has erred in heavily relying upon the order dated 28th February 1970, in that, the said order has been misconceived, misconstrued and misappreciated by it.
(vi)That the learned Appellate Court below has seriously erred in exercising its jurisdiction by interfering with the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge inasmuch as the learned Appellate Court below as misconceived, misconstrued the provision of law, rules and the orders applicable to the case and acted in exercise of its jurisdiction with material irregularity.
(vii) That the learned Appellate Court below has seriously erred in granting the injunction as the respondent neither has any prima fade case nor balance of convenience in his favour inasmuch as the granting of injunction would upset the entire working arrangements of the Department.
5. Mr. Kazi Akhtar Ahmed, the learned Advocate-General, Bakhsh Government of Sind argued the case before me on behalf of marri, the petitioner while respondents in Revision Petitions Nos, 85 to 90 of 1971 were iepresented by their learned counsel Mr. Khalid M. Ishaque and respondent in Revision Petition No, 84 of 1971 was represented by MA. Jamaluddin K. Shaikh and Abdullah Shah.
These learned Advocates however, adopted the arguments of Mr. Khalid M. Ishaqe in support of their case.
6. At outset Mr. Khalid M. Ishaque counsel for the respondents raised an objection that no revision lies under section 115, C. P. C. as the petitioner has failed to show any irregularity by the learned Appellate Court. He relied on in the case of Muhammad Swaleh v. Messrs United Grains and Fodder Agencies . A perusal of this judgment goes to show that High Court failed to set aside an ex parte decree on mistaken view of law and their Lordships were pleased to set aside the decree on appeal and pointed out the general principle governing section 115, C. P. C. that-- "Every irregularity or illegality in exercise of jurisdiction will not render subordinate Court's order void and without jurisdiction--Party seeking Revision to show further that there was such violation of statutory provision or principle of natural justice as rendered proceedings coram non judice."
There is no dispute about this general principle as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court but the facts of that case are different than the present cases before me. Here I find that the learned First Appellate Court in his judgment in fact failed to consider the judgments of the Supreme Court as well as of the High Courts cited before him on behalf of petitioner. On the contrary, the learned Senior Civil Judge in his order took note of the authorities of the Supreme Court and of the High Court for example The Chairinan, East Pakistan Railway Board and District Traffic Superintendent v. Abdul Majid , Jaffer Ali Akhtar Yousufzai v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan , The Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs v. A. K. M. Waliullah Chowdhry as well as unreported judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Province of West Pakistan and another v. Malik Asghar Khan Civil Appeal No, K-41 of 1970 and be passed his judgment after following the principles laid down in this case. The learned Additional District Judge, Hyderabad however, totally ignored the above authorities which in law he was bound to follow.
Even on this fact it is sufficient to interfere apart from other grounds in my revisional jurisdiction against the order. I am supported in my this view) by a decision of this Court reported as Oil and Gas Development Corporation v. Ltd.-Col. Shujauddin Ahmed wherein it was held that-- "Revision --Material irregularity and illegality--Subordinate Court failing to notice or ignoring or refusing to follow decision of its High Court--Acts illegally and with material irregularity in terms of section 115."
7. The next objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents was with regards to the production and reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner of certain notifications of the petitioner-Government. (These notifications being very relevant will be reproduced later on). This objection of the learned counsel for the respondents equally holds no water for the reasons that notification of 2nd March 1963 has been referred to and relied upon by the respondents in their pleadings before the lower Courts, with regards to the other notifications these are, as it will be apparent, in continuation of the notification dated 2nd March 1963, wherein various orders were passed concerning the respondents to continue officiating temporary and ad hoc appointments of S. D. Os. Besides, relevant notifications can be produced under the law at any time to show an1 2 3 4 5 existing fact and as the respondents did not challenge the validity of the notification, their production and reliance by the petitioner is quite legal and justified, as well, I repel this objection of the respondents.
8. As I am concerned at the moment to see whether the respondents were able to make out a prima facie case for temporary relief or not ? And whether the Courts below confined their consideration only on this point ? I therefore, refrain from discussing the lengthy arguments on various different points, many of them raised for the first time before me by the parties. The main question therefore, for present adjudication is whether the petitioner succeeded in making a prima facie case to show that reversion of the respondents from their officiating posts of S. D. Os. to their substantive posts of Overseers on which they hold lien being confirmed hands, is legal or not ?
9. In support of this contention, the learned Advocate-General relied upon in the case of Province of West Pakistan v. Bashir Ahmad . By this single judgment their Lordships of the Supreme Court have decided four appeals out of which three of them were concerned with the same question as before me, wherein officiating S. D. Os. challenged their reversion to their substantive posts of Overseers claiming that after long service they should be deemed as confirmed. But their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that-- "Reversion to one's permanent post from a higher post where at the reverted servant was officiating for an indefinite period or 'until further order' while his juniors who were officiating similarly were continued in the higher posts, did not amount to 'reduction in rank' within the meaning of section 240 of the Government of India Act, 1935 or its corresponding prevision in Article 181 of the Constitution (1956)."
It was further held that-- "An officiating appointment, in the nature of things, is tentative, in the sense of putting the incumbent to proof of his capacity and competency in respect of higher responsi-bilities than those attaching to his permanent post of grade. Every officiating appointment is really subject to the condition of the officer and his work found satisfactory.
Reversion to the substantive post cannot in terms mean the same as reduction in rank."
It was further observed that-- "In ordering reversion from an officiating position the chief consideration is the public interest of which none but the superiors of the officiating servant could be the Judges.
Therefore, the view that reversion should start with the junior-most officer was not correct."
In my opinion this authority amply meets all the objections raised on behalf of the respondents and fully supports the case of the petitioner.
10. The next case relied on behalf of the petitioner is Zawar Hussain v. Province of West Pakistan .
Precisely the same question as before me, was raised before a Division Bench of this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 98 of Constitution of 1962. The applicant in this case was an officiating S. D. 0. and confirmed Overseer. He challenged the order of reversion to his substantive post by the Government, on the same grounds more or less as before me, that his four years' service as officiating S. D. 0. must be deemed to be treated as a probation period, and he was not liable to reversion, that the ratio of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer Sub-Divisional Officer was 1 : 1 as between the promotees and direct appointees and the petitioner's reversion constitutes a breach of guarantee in proviso (a) to subsection (3) of section 8 of the Establishment of West Pakistan Act, 1955 and, that the persons junior to the petitioner have been allowed to officiate as/SubDivisional Officers and, therefore, his reversion is questionable. Repelling all these contentions of the petitioner their Lordships of the High Court were pleased to hold that -- "Promotion/appointment on ad hoc basis, purely as stop-gap arrangement--Cannot be equated to promotion/appointment on probation'--Promotion/appointment 'a probation' a preliminary step to permanent appointment--Ad hoc appointee/ promotee cannot claim lien or right to6 7 continue in higher post--Mere fact that persons junior to petitioner were allowed to continue in higher post--Not a sufficient reason to compel Government to let petitioner also to continue in such higher post--Reversion to substantive post due to exigency does not operate as 'reduction in rank' so as to be actionable in Court."
11. The next case. relied upon by the learned Advocate-Ganeral is Izhar Alam Razvi v. The Chief Secretary to the Government of West Pakistan . In this case also the reversion order from officiating capacity to his substantive post was challenged in a writ petition. After discussing the existing case-law on the question of officiating/temporary and ad hoc appointments, their Lordships of the High Court found themselves bound to follow the view of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in cases reported as Province of West Pakistan v. Bashir Ahmed ; Pakistan and another v. Qazi Syed Hikmat Hussain , State of Pakistan v. Mehrajuddin , Province of East Pakistan v. Muhammad Sajjad Ali Mazumdar and Badrul Hague Qureshi v. Province of West Pakistan and held that-- "Appointment to higher post In officiating capacity--Reversion to substantive post--No reduction in rank--Letter of Promotion/Appointment against higher post not specifically indicating appointment as officiating--Appointee, nevertheless, aware that such appointment being against leave vacancy was of officiating nature--Writ petition challenging reversion to substantive appointment, in circumstances, held, not maintainable."
12. In support of his contention that the respondents all along knew and were duly intimated by the petitioner with regards to their promotion as officiating temporary stop-gap arrangement, the learned Advocate-General referred to the following Notifications which for the sake of convenience and better understanding of the dispute between the parties are hereby reproduced : "GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKS DEPARTMENT Lahore 2-3-1963.
The Governor of West Pakistan is pleased to order that Overseers/Supervisors in the West Pakistan B & R Department while officiating as Sub-Divisional Officers shall be treated as Gazetted Officers and shall draw pay in the Standard Class II payscale viz. No, 250-20-150/25 --600/25-750. This pay-scale will be admissible to them and their formal promotion from non-Gazetted to Gazetted status in consultation with the East Pakistan Public Service Commission.
2. This is in supersession of the orders already issued under this Department memo. No, N111-13/316- 60 dated 22-3-1962." NO. S. C. N. II. 13-315-60 GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT. Dated Lahore, the 23rd May 1966.
In continuation of this department's order of even number dated the 2nd March 1963, the Governor of West Pakistan is pleased to order that the Overseers/Supervisors of West Pakistan B & R Deptt. as8 9 10 11 12 mentioned in the enclosed list while officiating as S. D. Os. (Civil) shall be treated as Gazetted officers and shall draw pay in the standard Class II payscale viz. No, 250-20-450/25-600 /25-750 (since revised Rs, 350-35/ 525/40-925 (consolidated).
2. This is to notify that the West Pakistan Public Service Commission have agreed to the promotion of these officers as officiating Sub-Divisional Officers on ad hoc basis up to 31-5-1966.
LIST OF OVERSEERS/SUPERVISORS OF THE B & R DEPARTMENT OFFICIATING AS SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICERS S. No,Name of Offg. S. D. O. Remarks Group 'A'
1. Mr. Sarwar Khan B & R Peshawar
2. Mr. Mir Alam Khan Do
3. Mr. Ghulam Haider B & R Quetta
4. Mr. Raza Gul Do
5. Mr. Wali Mohammad do Group 'B'
1. Mr. S. Mazhar Hussain P. H. E. Department
2. Mr. Sajjad Ahmed Khan son of Riaz Ahmed KhanB & R Quetta
3. Mr. Saddiq Ali Shah son of Qutub Ali ShahB & R Hyderabad
4. Mr. Mohammad Hashim Shaikh On deputation to A. D.
V. Hyderabad
5. Mr. Abdul Majid Arain P.H. M. Department
6. Mr. Datardino H. Shaikh B & R Hyderabad
7. Mr. Abdul Latif son of Abdul Majid Do
8. Mr. Abdul Sattar Do
9. Mr. Moti Ram Rodho Mal Jodhani Do
10. Mr. Abdul Haq Sahib Dino Shaikh Do
11. Mr. Lal Bakhsh Sh. Son of Wahid Bakhsh ShDo
12. Mr. Mohammad Saeed Ansari Do
13. Mr. Najmuddin Ahmed Do
14. Mr. Mohammad Paril Samo Do
15. Mr. Mohammad Kamil Do
16. Mr. Mohammad Afzal Arain son of Ali Mohammad ArainUnder suspension.
17. Mr. Mohammad Hanif Choudhry P H E Department B & R Hyderabad (absent from duty)
18. Mr. Imtiaz Ali son of Mumtaz Ali B & R Hyderabad
19. Mr. Saleem Ullah son of Amir Ullah B & R Hyderabad
20. Mr. Iftikhar Ullah Mallhi B & R Quetta
21. Mr. Rashid Ahmed B & R Quetta
22. Mr. Wasiq Ali son of Sadiq Ali B & R Hyderabad
23. Mr. Zaffaruddin Sh. On deputationto A. D. C.
24. Mr. M. A. Razzak son of M. A. Mastan B & R Hyderabad
25. Mr. Kabir Ahmed son of Bashir AhmedDo
26. Mr. Ilam Uddin Arsia P H E Department B & R Lahore
27. Mr. Mazhar Mohammad Ayub Khan PathanOn deputation to B. D.
28. Mr. Mohammad Qadir son of Jan Muhammad Sh.On deputation to E. D.
29. Mr. Mohammad Ilyas Mastoi B & R Hyderabad 29-A Mr. Mohammad F. Channa Do
30. Mr. Nooruddin son of Amir Bakhsh BaloochB & R Quetta
31. Mr. Abdul Ghani son of Qamaruddin BhuttoB & R Hyderabad
32. Mr. Noor Ahmed Nabi Dad Agha B & R Quetta
33. Mr. Mohammad Ayub Anwar Sh. On deputation with A.
D. C., Sukkur
34. Mr. Karim Bakhsh Soomro B & R Hyderabad
35. Mr. Ilyas Beg Mirza B & R Quetta
36. Mr. Ghulam Mohammad son of Taj MohammadB & R Hyderabad
37. Mr. Abdul Razak son of Mohammad Hasham Sh.B & R Hyderabad
38. Mr. M. A. Khan Do
39. Mr. Zulfiqar Haider On deputation with B.D.
40. Mr. Iftikhar Ahmed son of Hashmat AliB & R Hyderabad
41. Mr. Mohammad Yasin Qureshi B & R Quetta
42. Mr. Mohammad Ali son of Haji Mohammad QureshiB & R Hyderabad
43. Mr. Abdul Ghafoor son of Imam BakhshB & R Agency Lahore
44. Mr. Mohammad Hassan son of Mohammad YaqubB & R Quetta
45. Mr. Riaz Hussain Shah B & R Hyderabad
46. Mr. Inayat Ali Shah B & R Bahawalpur
47. Mr. Allah Ditta B & R Bahawalpur
48. Mr. Zawwar Hussain B & R Quetta
49. Mr. Abdul Ahad son of Qadir Shah On deputation to M. C.
Jacobabad.
50. Mr. Saleem-Uz-Zaman On deputation to M. C.
Nawab Shah.
51. Mr. Abdul Karim Sh. H & S Agency Lahore.
52. Mr. Ibni Mujtaba Naqvi On deputation to M. C.
Sukkur.
53. Mr. Hasan Haider Zaidi On deputation to B. D.
Group 'D'
1. Mr. Malik Mohammad Yousuf B & R Peshawar
2. Mr. Mahboob Illahi Do
3. Mr. Abdul Salam Do
4. Mr. Rab Nawab Do
5. Mr. Asghar Ali Do
6. Mr. Abdul Hamid Bhatti Do
7. Mr. Wajid Hussain Do
8. Mr. Mohammad Dayar Do
9. Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Do
10. Mr. Dost Mohammad II Do
11. Mr. Noorul Haque Do
12. Mr. Dost Mohammad I Do
13. Mr. Zafar Ali. Do
14. Mr. Dilawar Khan Do
15. Mr. Mohammad Yousuf Khan JanjuaDo
16. Mr. Abdul Jabbar P. H. E. Department
17. Mr. Mohammad Nadir Khan B & R Peshawar
18. Mr. Jan Mohammad Do
19. Mr. Fazal Rahim Do
20. Mr. Zulifqar Hussain Do
21. Mr. Qasim Shah On deputation to A. P.
Dir
22. Mr. Jahangir Khan On deputation to Commissioner D. I.
Khan.
23. Mr. Mahboob Ali Do
24. Mr. Hussain Ali On deputation to B. D." "GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN" COMMUNICATION & WORKS DEPARTMENT Dated Lahore the 13th June 1970.
No, E. 11-12-2/64, on the advice of the West Pakistan Public Service Commission Lahore, the Governor of West Pakistan is pleased to extend the continued ad hoc appointment of Overseers/Supervisors, Civil E & M Assist ant Engineers (Temporary)/Officiating Sub-Divisional Officer Civil and E & M in the buildings and Highways Department up to 30-6-1970. M. Mazhar Munir, Secretary to Government of West Pakistan Communication and Works Department." "GOVERNMENT OF SIND COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT Karachi Dated the 6th April 1971.
No, EI& W) 1-200/70.--In consultation with the Sind Baluchistan Public Service Commission, Government is pleased to extend as an interim measure, the continued ad hoc appointment of Overseers/Supervisors, Civil and E & M as Assistant Engineers (Temporary)/Officiating Sub- Divisional Officers Civil and E & M in the Sind Buildings and Highways Department up to 31-12-1970. (Sd.) S. M. Rafi A., Secretary to Government of Sind Communication & Works Department."
A perusal of these notifications goes to show that the respondents acquiesced in their officiating posts of which they have amply enjoyed up to the date of reversion, yet no objection was raised by them to the officiating appointments and they willingly continued to enjoy the offices offered to them by their employer, the petitioner. The respondents therefore, cannot be allowed to agitate at this late stage that their reversion in the circumstances amounts to reduction in rank. They will have definitely lull opportunity to show any existing law or rule in support of their contention before the learned trial Court at the time of hearing of the case.
13. Lastly I may mention that the learned Advocate-General relied upon an unreported judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Province of West Pakistan v. Malik Asghar Khan decided on 3rd September 1970. In this case their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly laid down, not only the basic considerations for grant or refusal of temporary injunction, but also the circumstances in which the injunction may be granted or refused against the Government Departmer t. I may reproduce the observations of their Lordships with benefits as under.
"Lately in the case of Muhammad Umer Beg v. Sultan Mahmood PLD 1970 SC 139 this Court has laid down three basic considerations for the grant or refusal of temporary injunction which are : (1)
Whether the plaintiff has a prima facie good case : (2) Whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of the grant or refusal of the injunction and (3) Whether the plaintiff will suffer an irreparable loss if the injunction is refused. It seems that the learned Single Judge in the High Court has not taken all these factors into consideration while issuing temporary injunction in favour of the respondent and has merely proceeded to issue it on his feeling that the two Courts below have not gone deeper into merits of the respondent's case on the strength of the West Pakistan Forest Department (Subordinate Service) Rules, 1963, which the respondent has sought to invoke in his favour.
We would refrain from making any observations on the merits of the respondent's contention even prima facie, as it might prejudice his case but we are constrained to hold that neither of the two other essentials for grant of a temporary injunction reproduced above is satisfied in this case to incline us to uphold the view of the learned Single Judge of the High Court. Issuance of temporary injunctions to the Government Departments in respect of service matters is bound to disturb 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 administrative arrangements of a Department. Again, there can be no question of any irreparable injury being caused to the respondent in this case by refusing the temporary injunction to him as he can claim a monetary compensation in case he succeeds in his suit and the orders of the appellant reverting the respondent to his original post of Forester are finally held as illegal and without jurisdiction by the competent Court. In this situation, we feel that the learned Single Judge in the High Court has not proceeded on correct legal principles in granting a temporary injunction to the respondent which was refused by the trial Judge as well as by the learned District Judge."
Before parting with the cases, however, I may refer to the judgment relied upon on behalf of the respondents which is reported as Jafar Ali Akhtar Yousafzai v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan. This Division Bench Judgment was heavily relied upon on behalf of the respondents before the two Courts below as well as before me. In this case it was held that-- "When continuous officiation is not sspecifically authorised by any law and the Government/competent authority continues to treat the incumbent of a post as officiating, it is only to retain extra-disciplinary powers or for other reasons including those of inefficiency and negligency, e.g. failure on the part of the relevant authorities to make the rules in time, that the prefix 'officiating' is continued to be used with the appointment and in some cases for years together. In proper cases, therefore, Courts are competent to decide whether for practical purposes and for consequences such appointments have permanent character and, when it is so found, to give legal effect to it."
In my opinion the facts of this case are clearly distinguishable than those before me, in the present cases the order of officiating appointments are not challenged by the respondents therefore, it cannot be said that the orders were passed by an incompetent authority as were held in the case cited before me in which the order of officiating was found to be unlawful while, in the cases before me the validity of initial order and its continuity as officiating promotion is not challenged therefore, in my opinion the cases cited by the learned counsel for the respondents does not help him in any way. In view of the above discussion and the legal position I am of the opinion that these revision petitions must succeed, as a result I set aside the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Hyderabad dated 2nd February 1971, and upheld the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad dated 8-1-1971, and accept the revision petitions with costs. Order accordingly. The record of the lower Courts be sent back for trial of the suit where the respondents/plaintiffs will have ample opportunity to put their side of the case for final adjudication. PLD 1964 SC 97 PLD 1965 SC 725 PLD 1970 Quetta 115 PLD 1966 SC 788 PLD 1970 Kar. 332 PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 93 PLD 1968 Kar. 693 PLD 1971 Kar. 45 PLD 1959 SC (Pak) ) 107 PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 147 PLD 1962 SC 71 1969 SCMR 244 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12