' RAJA MUHAMMAD KHURSHID KHAN, ACTG. C J.-Vide Government Order No, Admin/2908-45/77, dated 13th December, 1977, which reads :- {{URDU TEXT}} Muzaffar Waffa (a Government employee) appellant to this appeal, atongwith six others, was selected for promotion and appointed as Section Officer in the Commerce and Industries Department.
2. The Government Order, it would appear, stipulates the following : -
(1) That all the promotees would remain on probation for two years ;
(ii) That the officers were to complete successfully training course of three months in the Federal Government Secretariat Training Institute, Rawalpindi ; and
(iii) In the event the candidates fail to complex the training successfully they shall be reverted back to their original posts.
' It would appear that the Government Older neither stipulates successful training prior to the termination of probationary period nor it says that a candidate will have to come out successful in one attempt.
3. The promotees were sent to the concerned institution to undergo the training. All passed but the appellant unfortunately failed. For this failure he was reverted to his original post vide Government Order No, Admn. 15871-15884/77, dated 14th of December, 1977. The reversion was, it is important, effected within the probationary period.
4. The appellant, aggrieved by the reversion order, moved an appeal before the Service Tribunal which, vide judgment dated 18-2.1982, was dismissed on the ground that the promotion order only allowed one chance to the candidates to complete the training successfully and as the appellant failed to fulfil the condition the reversion order needs no interference. This appeal, by leave, seeks to impeach the said judgment of the Service Tribunal.
5. The principal question relates to the true interpretation of section 5 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as the Civil Servants Act), under which the promotion order was made. It is significant that the learned Service Tribunal opines that the training of three months was governed by the rules of the said Training Institute which allowed two more chances to the appellant. If any trainee, under the rules of the institution, failed to pass all the papers after availing of all the chances only then such an official could be reverted to his original post. But in the estimation of the learned Tribunal, the case of the appellant is distinguishable and cannot be brought under the rules of the institution because the Government, in the instant case, had only allowed one chance to the appellant to pass the proposed training as opposed to general rules and practice of the institution and the appellant having accepted the condition of promotion, cannot now turn round and say that the reversion of the appellant on his first failure was illegal and contrary to the rules and regulations either of the Government or the Training Institute.
6. Kh. Muhammad Saeed, the learned counsel for the appellant, has serious criticism regarding the approach made by the Service Tribunal to section 5 of the Civil Servants Act and the relevant rules of the institution. In his view the appellant, under the provisions of section 5 of the Civil Servants Act, could be reverted back only if he failed to complete the requisite training prior to the termination of the probationary period and not before. He also maintained that three chances within the probationary period could validly be availed of by the appellant and without allowing the appellant to avail all the chances, he could not be reverted, Thus, the approach of the learned Service Tribunal, he maintained, is faulty to say that the Government could pass an order in disregard to the rules of" the institution which, inter alia, allowed three chances to a candidate to complete the training successfully. He further submitted that before the expiry of the probationary period the appellant could not legally be reverted to his original post.
7. To have a correct view of the matter let us have a look into section 5 of the Civil Servants Act. It reads :- "(1) An initial appointment to a service or.Post referred to in section 4, not being an ad hoc appointment, shall be on such probation and for such period of probation as may be prescribed.
(2) Any appointment of a civil servant by promotion or transfer to a service or post may also be made on such probation and for such period of probation as may be prescribed.
(3) Where, in respect of any service or post, satisfactory completion of probation includes the passing of prescribed examination, test or course or successful completion of any training a person appointed on probation to such service or post who, before the expiry of the original or extended period of his probation, has failed to pass such examination or test or to successfully complete the course or the training shall, except as may be prescribed otherwise-
(a) if he was appointed to such service or post by initial recruitment, be discharged ; or
(b) if he was appointed to such service or post by promotion or transfer, be reverted to the service or post from which he was promoted or transferred and against which he holds a lien or, if there be no such service or post, be discharged."(Underlining is ours).
' It would be noticed that subsection (3) of section 5 of the Civil Servants Act stipulates that satisfactory completion of probation includes the passing of prescribed examination, test or course or successful completion of any training before the expiry of the original or extended period of probation except as may be prescribed otherwise.
8. The main question, which falls for determination and which would resolve the controversy, is the interpretation of subsection (3) of section 5 of the Civil Servants Act. It is an elementary principle of law that the Courts always lean towards reasonable interpretation of a statute. It is also well- recognized rule of construction that where the literal construction would lead to repugnancy or to result contrary to good sense, the Court may add words to the provision to be construed reasonably. Though the Courts of law have nothing to do with the reasonableness or unreasonableness of a statutory (Hero la italics) provision, the reasonableness or otherwise of the interpretation is relevant to interpret what the Legislature has said and in determining either the general / object of the Legislature or the meaning of the language in any particular passage, the intention which appears to be most in accord with the convenience, reason, justice and legal principles, should, in all cases of doubtful significance, be presumed to be the correct one. This is called the beneficial construction. This beneficial construction of a document or statute has deep roots not only in our judicial system bat in the judicial system throughout the World. Any interpretation in departure to this well-settled rule may cause or perpetuate injustice and that is why such a method has always been shown disfavored by the superior Courts.
9. With this background let us now determine the meaning of subsection (3) of section 5 of the Civil Servants Act. The words before the expiry of the original or extended period of his probation, has failed to pass such examination or test or to successfully complete the course or the training shall, except as may be prescribed otherwise" appearing in the section clearly indicate that the penalty for unsuccessful training can only be inflicted after the expiry of the probationary or extended period of probation, if no departure otherwise is permissible. The word "extended" clearly manifests the intention of the Legislature that penalty would, in the first instance, be permissible if a candidate fails to complete the training successfully within the probationary period and then within the extended period if so allowed by the Government. Had it been the intention of the Legislature to allow only one chance, the word "extended" would lose all importance. Courts would not ignore the well-settled proposition that the Legislature would! Not employ a word not to carry out the purpose which it conveys in explicit! Terms.
10. Let us now determine the meaning of the words "as may be prescribed otherwise". Before we advert to interpret the words "as may be prescribed otherwise", we may make a reference to rule 8 sub-rule 3 of the Section Officers (Probation, Training and Seniority) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred as Section Officers Rules). Sub-rule (3) of rule 8 of Section Officers Rules reads :- "A probationer who fails to qualify in any subject or subjects in an examination referred to in sub- rule (1) shall be allowed two more chances to appear at the examinations to be held subsequently by the Commission in such subject or subjects. "
(Underlining* is ours).
' The above rule clearly shows that a probationer, who fails to qualify in an subject or subjects in any examination under rules, shall be allowed two more chances to appear at the examination to be held subsequently by the Commission in such subject or subjects. These rules were framed in the year 1964. When section 5 of the Civil Servants Act in the year 1976 was enacted, the Legislature, it seems, was well aware of the provisions sub-rule (3) of rule 8 of the Section Officers Rules and that is why to avoid any conflict in the Civil Servants Act and Section Officers Rules, the, words "before expiry of the original or extended period" have been employed in subsection (3) of section 5 of the Civil Servants Act.
' For the above-stated reasons, we feel safe to hold that the appellant coup not be reverted to his original post without affording him two further opportunities within the probationary period of two years and the lea I Service Tribunal was in error in holding that the appellant could validly avail! Of only one chance to complete the training.
11. Now we take up the issue as to what is meant by the words "as may be prescribed otherwise".
The word "prescribed", under section 2, subsection (1) (b) (i), is defined to mean "prescribed by rules". It is thus manifest that unless the rules are not framed under the Civil Servants Act all order are governed by the Act and the Government is incompetent to make an order in departure with any of the provisions of the Act. At the time the order of promotion referred to above was made by the Government no rules were framed by the Government. Naturally the provision of the section was E to govern the order which, as already stated, allows successful completion of the training prior to probationary or extended period. Section Officers Rules, however, were later made on 25-7- 1978. But these rules were to come into force at once, therefore, they can have no retrospectively to cover the case before us.
12.It would thus follow that no rules in Azad Kashmir, at the time the appellant was required to undertake the examination in Pakistan, were available to override any provision of the Civil Servants Act or to provide guideline suggesting any method otherwise than provided in the Civil Servants Act. Therefore, there is no escape but to hold that the working system and the rules of the Institution would govern the present case. The rules of the. Institution, as said earlier, allow three chances for completion of the training. It is significant that the order of promotion also does not stipulate that the success in the examination should be in one attempt. All that it says is :- {{URDU TEXT}} ' The above observations, as said earlier, are in accordance with the provisions of subsection (3) of section 5 of the Civil Servants Act.
12. We are thus of the considered view that the order conveys the seen that an Officer sent to undergo the training was to complete the training in accordance with the rules of the Institution which allowed three chances. We cannot ignore the fact that if success in one attempt wad necessary the probationary period of two years would lose all its sense and meaning. The order then should have been couched in terms that the appellant is promoted temporarily and if he fails to complete the training of three months in a single attempt he will stand reverted. It may be recalled here that certain important terms and conditions of service of employees in the service of the State were provided for and granted in the Civil Servants Act and these terms and Condi tic ns cannot adversely be affected without clear legislation by law or rules suggesting otherwise.
13. Our considered view, therefore, is that though the training of three on this was necessary but it covered the whole probationary period of two years. This is the spirit of subsection (3) of section 5 of the Civil Servants ct. The Legislature, it is elementary, always suppresses mischief and advances justice. Reference may be made to Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes! 1962 Edition, page 66, wherein it is said :- "It is said to be the duty of the Judge to make such construction of a statute as shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. Even where the usual meaning of the language falls short of the whole object of the Legislature, a more extended meaning may be attributed to the words, if they are fairly susceptible of it. The construction must not, of course, be strained to include cases plainly omitted from the natural meaning of the words."
15. In the nutshell the only plausible interpretation that can be made to subsection (3) of section 5 of the Civil Servants Act is that a person promoted on probation for two years if despite availing of all the chances within the probationary or the extended period fails to complete the training then only he can be reverted to his original post and not otherwise. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Service Tribunal cannot be accepted.
16. It may be noted that the Courts have always endeavoured to harmonize Government Orders.
Acts and rules as far as practicable. Here all the orders are interlinked and their intention has to be gathered which appears to be most in accordance with convenience, reason and justice. So was held in The Working Muslim Mission and Literary Trust, Lahore and the Civil & Military Gazette Ltd., Lahore v. The Crown (1). It was observed in that case :- "It is a well-recognized rule of construction that where a literal construction would lead to repugnancy to good sense, the Court may add words to the provision to be construed.
' Though a Court of Law has nothing to do with the reasonableness or unreasonableness of a statutory provision, the reasonableness or otherwise of the interpretation is relevant to interpret what the Legislature has said, and in determining either the general object of the Legislature or the meaning of its language in any particular passage it is obvious that the intention which appears to be most in accord with convenience, reason, justice and legal principles, should, in all cases of doubtful significance, be presumed to be true one."
17. The very deputation of the officers to undertake training in Pakistan, it was also submitted, was in departure with the rules and law in Azad Kashmir. In this respect it was maintained that conditions for promotion could legitimately be prescribed by rules made under section 5 (3) of the Civil Servants Act and in the absence of such rules (as the case is before us) under the provisions of Kashmir Service Regulations promotion could be made subject to passing the test recognized under the Kashmir Service Regulations. He further submitted that under the provisions of Kashmir Service Regulations only a test specified by the appointing authority to be conducted by the Selection Authority is recognized and the examination in any Institution beyond Azad Kashmir is not permissible. As the appeal succeeds on other grounds, we leave this question open to be decided in a case in which its decision is absolutely necessary.
' For the above-stated reasons, this appeal succeeds with costs. Consequently the appellant will be considered to occupy his post as Section Officer since the date he was promoted as such. His promotion would, however, be subject to his passing the examination within the probationary period which was still available to him at the time of his reversion to his original post. The period shall be reckoned from the date this judgment is received by the Government. A copy of this judgment shall immediately be sent to the Chief Secretary for information. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1956 FC 209 {{FOOT NOTE}}