1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-Leave to appeal was granted to the Province of Punjab through Collector Muzaffargarh to examine the question of law whether on the enforcement of the West Pakistan Revenue Department District Ministerial Service Rules, 1964 the provisions of para. 3.5 of the District Office Manual ceased to have elect and stood repealed by necessary implication.
2. ' The respondent Muhammad Bashir was enlisted as an apprentice Junior Clerk on 15-11-1962 in accordance with the provisions of para. 3.5 of the District Office Manual. He was given occasional chances to work as Junior Clerk from 1962-1969 as and when a post of Junior Clerk was available in the District Administration. The Collector, Muzaffargarh on 13-1-1970 made certain appointments of Junior Clerks from outside the list maintained under para. 3.5 of the District Office Manual. He did so after requisitioning the names of candidates from the Employment Exchange and giving advertisements in respect of the vacancies that existed. The respondent appealed to the Commissioner and to the Board of Revenue against the failure of the Collector to take his candidature into consideration in making the appointment. He failed before those authorities., H; therefore, instituted a civil suit on 8-7-1971 claiming that the failure of the appellant to take his enlistment into consideration and the adoption of the procedure of direct recruitment was violative of the . Law on the subject. The suit was contested on numerous, grounds and the one which is now material for the consideration of this appeal was whether with the enforcement of West Pakistan Revenue Department District Ministerial Services Rules, 1964 the provisions of para. 3.5 ceased to have effect ; the list of Junior Clerks was of no avail and the respondent could claim no vested right.
3. ' The learned Civil Judge decreed the suit on 21-11-1972 holding that not only in law the provisions of para. 3.5 existed but in fact even after the enforcement of the Ministerial Service Rules, 1964 the practice adopted by the appellant had been one of making appointments from the waiting list on which the respondent's name happened to be the senior most.
4. ' On appeal the District Judge took the view that with the enforcement of the Ministerial Service Rules the provisions of para. 3.5 ceased to have effect and would be deemed to be repealed. He, therefore, accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit of the respondent. On a revision petition filed by the respondent, the High Court found that the provisions of para. 3.5 of the District Office Manual continued to subsist alongwith the Ministerial Rules ; that the respondent had a right under it to be appointed to any vacancy occurring in the group of Junior Clerks and having been denied that right the selection made by the Collector on 13-1-1970 was violative of the law.
5. ' The learned counsel representing the appellant has contended that initial recruitment has been defined and provided for in the Ministerial Rules framed in 1964. Therefore, the system prescribed in para. 3.5 of the District Office Manual for preparation of list of candidates for appointment to the post of Junior Clerk would be deemed to have been repealed and no right could be based on the entry made in it prior to the enforcement of the Ministerial Rules in 1964.
6. ' Previous to the enforcement of the Ministerial Rules, 1964 the rules in force were the District Subordinate Services Rules of 1942 and in the 1942 Rules it was provided (Rule 9) that recruitment to the post of Junior Clerk shall be made from three sources. The first was apparently by transfer from the category of Revenue officials, like Patwari etc. The other was by selection from among apprentice clerks and non-pensionable staff including Examiner and the third was by direct appointment. The second method of appointment was dealt with in some detail in para. 3.5 of the District Manual in the following words :- "3.5. The following instructions shall be observed for the maintenance of the lists of candidates for appointment as apprentice clerks and for direct appointment to the posts of Junior and senior clerks in the district offices :-
(1) The candidates shall be enlisted after a competitive test, under the following heads :- {{TABLE}} Marks
(i) Educational record 15
(ii) Family record 15
(iii) Viva Voce 15
(iv) Handwriting. 10
(v) Precise writing 15
(vi) Dictation (Urdu) 10
(vii) 20 Office accomplishment (Shorthand, Typewriting and drafting).
7. Total 100 {{TABLE}} ' Applications must be invited for admission to the test by a certain date, in the form given at the end of this paragraph. Only bona fide residents of the district are eligible for the test. The son or other dependent of an official serving on the district establishment will be accepted as a bona fide resident of the district whether the official originally resided in that district or not.
(2) (a) The number of candidates to be entered on the lists shall be fixed for each district by the Commissioner, on the basis of the requirements of the preceding three years, according to the communal proportions fixed for recruitment for the division.
(b) Of the total number of recruits 60 per cent should be agriculturist and 40 per cent non- agriculturists.
8. (c)The provisions of clauses (a) and (b) above, shall be subject to suitable candidates being available and to their having passed the prescribed qualifying examinations.
(3) The lists shall be revised annually, and the names removed of those who have become average, and of those who have secured employment elsewhere or do not wish to be retained on the list. The maximum age limit for acceptance of the candidate on the list should be 19 years in the case of Matriculates, 21 years for F,, A. And 23 years for graduates.
(4) Vacancies shall be filled by selection from among the candidates on the list, except for special reasons, and with the previous sanction of the Commissioner, which should be given as a matter of course."
9. ' The Rules of 1964 deal with the same subject and define 'initial recruitment' (rule 2, clause (i) as "appointment made otherwise than by promotion or transfer from another Service/Department/Post". It is provided in rule 5 sub-rule (8) that vacancies in the cadre posts of Junior Clerki shall be filled by initial recruitment. The age, qualification and the probation period and the seniority are dealt with in the Rules that follow. Finally, there is rule 11 which reads as follows :- "11. In all matters not expressly provided for in these rules, members, of the Service shall be governed by such rules as have been or may hereinafter be prescribed by Government and made applicable to them."
10. ' In the appendix to the rules, the Junior Clerks are listed at No, 5 the qualification prescribed for their appointment is matriculation or an enquivalent examination from recognised University or Board and the method of recruitment shown is by initial recruitment. It is clear from the examination of the Rules that though initial recruitment has been defined in the Ministerial Rules of 1 64 and the qualifications therefor have been prescribed, how the initial recruitment to be made is not to be found in these Rules. For example, such appointments can be made under the rules without notice, without advertisement, without requisition to the Employment Exchange and yet will qualify as initial recruitment. The provisions of para. 3.5 of the District Office Manual on the contrary provide complete code for selecting candidates, for maintaining a waiting list, for confining recruitment to it unless permission of the Commissioner is obtained. The list is to be periodically revised and kept up-to-date which is to be utilised for the purposes. Of making appointments. It cannot, therefore, be said that with the enforcement of the Ministerial Rules of 1964, the list prepared under 8 para. 3.5 of the District Office Manual stood repealed or revoked as the provisions of para. 3.5 were inconsistent with the Service Rules of 1964. We do not find any repugnancy or inconsistency between the two. We do not find that the effect of the enforcement of the Ministerial Service Rules, 1964 was one of repeal of provisions made in para 3.5. The view taken by the High Court is in conformity with law, and Rules of interpretation of statutory instruments. Hence the appeal is found to be without merit and dismissed with costs.