1. ' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Syed Muhammad Akram Shah, Assistant Deputy Commissioner's Office Gujrat has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Province of the Punjab through the Chief Secretary, S.G.A. & I Department, Lahore and Member, Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the order, dated 19th September, 1977 passed by respondent No, 2 may be declared to be illegal, void, without any lawful authority and of no legal effect. The appellant has also however, submitted that he may be allowed the benefit of the post of Tehsildar w,e,f, the said date. Brief facts of the case are that Syed Muhammad Akram Shah appellant joined the Office of the D.C. Gujrat, in the year 1964 and after working on various posts (including Assistant Colony Clerk, Sadar Wasil Baqi Nawis, and District Revenue Accountant) was appointed as District Nazir. He was recommended for appointment as Naib-Tehsildar till 1972 and then onward was proposed for nomination to the former P.C.S. In 1973 and 1974 he was recommended for appointment as Tehsildar by various Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners under whom he had the opportunity and honour to work. It was in May, 1975 that he was selected as B Class Tehsildar candidate by respondent No, 2 vide his order No, 3849-75/1825-B (F) I, dated 26th May, 1975. The appellant underwent the necessary training and passed the requisite departmental examination and was accordingly declared to be qualified to hold the post of Tehsildar vide memo. No, 6281- 76/5702 E-(F), dated 30th August, 1976. The appointment was made by Member, Board of Revenue under rule 13. On 8th August, 1977 M.L.I. No, 21 came into force which required that all the ad hoc appointments and those made in relaxation of the relevant rules be reviewed and if on such revision some persons were found ineligible or unsuitable their services had to be terminated. It was further added that those found eligible and suitable would be regularized into service. There was a wider clause in that M.L.I. No, 21 which laid down that all appointments "whether by initial recruitment or by promotion, made otherwise than in accordance with the prescribed method of recruitment-promotion shall be deemed to have been made on ad hoc basis and their cases would be regulated according to paragraph 2 of the instructions". Appellant's case was submitted before the Review Com-mittee which found that the case of the appellant was a case of termination of service and thus by the impugned order the appellant's services as Tehsildar were terminated and he had to go back to a place wherefrom he was selected. The appellant made a representation to the concerned authority who finally have informed vide No, PA/DS (G) 21/81, dated 14th February, 1981 that his representation has been considered and rejected by the Government. Hence this appeal.
2. ' We have heard the learned counsel of the appellant as well as the District Attorney appointed for the representation of the respondent No, 2 and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. Lengthy arguments were advanced from both sides and the crux of the same is given as under "The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was eligible for appointment as Tehsildar under the amended rule 2 (13) (b)(v) of 1962 Rules and the question of invoking any relaxation in rule 17, ibid did not arise ;
(ii) that the M.L. Instructions No, 21 was not attracted to the case of the appellant as he had been validly and lawfully appointed by the competent authority under 1962 Rules without any relaxation ;
(iii) that the appellant was not a Tehsildar candidate at the time of the passing of the impugned order but a full-fledged Tehsildar after having undergone necessary training and passing the departmental examination ; (iv)that the case of the appellant was a case of misapplication of the rules which has resulted in the form of the impugned order liable to be set aside.
3. ' On the other hand the learned District Attorney has submitted that even if it is assumed that the case of the appellant did not directly fall under M.L.I. No, 21 the jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal was hit by P.C.O. Order, 1981. The learned District Attorney has also submitted that the case of the appellant suffers from the rigours of limitation, therefore, the appeal is liable to be rejected as time-barred. With regard to the merits of the case it was submitted that the appellant was for all purposes an ad hoc appointee and his appointment was fully covered by the definition of ad hoc as given in the Civil Servants Act because vide Chief Minister's order dated 7th May, 1975 relaxation of rules was made in his case. He agreed that his appointment had either to be confirmed by the P.S.C. Or its substitute. i,e, the Selection Committee after the post was regularly advertised, therefore, the lack of this pre-requisite would make the appellant as ad hoc appointee only. We have given anxious thought to the submissions made by the parties and first of all deal with point of limitation so taken up by the respondent District Attorney against the present appeal of the appellant. We have carefully taken into consideration the procedure laid down with regard to representation so envisaged and found that according to the Board of Revenue Delegation of Powers Rules, 1958 as amended subsequently the appellate authority in respect of Tehsildar would be full board excluding the Member whose order is appealed against. It is also an established fact under rule 4 (b) (1) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, reduction to a lower post is always a major penalty and rule 13, ibid confers a right on the civil servant to prefer an appeal to the competent authority within 30 days from the date of communication of the order so affecting his status or rights. As mentioned earlier previously the appellate authority in respect of Tehsildar was the Government but through an amendment the full board was substituted for this purpose. In this way what we find is that no decsion was taken in the case of the appellant by the competent authority and the petition of revision thus remained undecided. We also further find that the orders of the Government were never conveyed to the appellant. The representation of the appellant was not finalised, as his case remained undecided by, the full Board which was the ultimate authortiy in his case. In view of above, we hold that appeal before us is not beyond time.
4. With regard to the argument that the case of the appellant is hit by P.C.O. (Article 15) we find after examination of the same that this Article comes into display only when it is established that the order was passed by the M.L. Authorities or was purported to have been passed by the authorities.
5. In the present case the record reveals that the appellant was selected as a Class Tehsildar candidate in relaxation of rule 2 (13) (b) as permissible under rule 13 of the rules, ibid. This appointment was subject to three conditions only :
(i) successful completion of necessary training ;
(ii) passing of departmental examination of Tehsildar ; and
(iii) production of requisite certificate within such period or any such number of attempts as prescribed in rules 4 (2), (b), 53, 57 and 58 of the West Pakistan Tehsildar's Departmental Examination and Training Rules, 1969.
6. ' These conditions are supported by Annex. A which is in order of the appointment in favour of the appellant. Similarly Annex. B, dated 3rd August, 1976 states as under : " On completion of prescribed training and having passed the departmental examination of Tehsildars S. Muhammad Akram Shah, Class Tehsildar candidate is declared to be qualified to hold the post of Tehsildar."
7. ' These two documents on the record nowhere state that the appointment of the appellant was made on ad hoc basis. His appointment/promotion was made on the recommendation of the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division in relaxation of rule 2 (13) (b) of the West Pakistan Tehsildari and Nabi-Tehsildari Service Rules, 1962 as permissible under rule 13, ibid. ' This rule was later on amended on the enforcement of Punjab Civil Servants (Change in Nomenclature of Service and Abolition of Classes) Rules, 1974. We reproduce the same for ready reference
(a) Under rule 3 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Change in Nomenclature of Service and Abolition of Classes) Rules, 1974, the names of services were changed to Punjab Unified Grades, and all references to a service in any rule, order, regulation or instructions, with the subject and context be considered as reference to the respective Punjab Unified Grade.
(b) The phrase "Punjab Verified Grade" has been defined in rule 2 (e) of the aforesaid rules as under : "Punjab Unified Grade" means the grade to which a civil se entitled in respect of his existing post.
8. ' The rule 7 of the aforesaid rules runs as under "Notwithstanding anything contained in any rule, order, or instructions all reservation of posts for purposes of appointment, promotion or transfer in favour of persons belonging to a particular service or cadre or belonging to a particular post are abolished."
9. ' Therefore rule 7 abolished the reservation of promotion to the post of Tehsildar to the Graduate Assistants of the Board of Revenue. Thus the appellant stood fully qualified for promotion to the post of B Class Tehsildar by virtue of rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Change in Nomenclature.
10. And Abolition of Classes) Rules, 1974.
11. In this manner it becomes crystal clear that the Board of Revenue was under no obligation to refer the case of the appellant for relaxation to the Chief Minister as this was unnecessary and the action so taken by sendi the case for relaxation was in violation of the amended rules and its mist application created a confusion which ultimately resulted in bringing the appellant's case within the purview of the M.L.I. No,
21. In view of above 'C we have no hesitation to repel the argument of the learned District Attorney that the case of the appellant was hit by P. C.
0. Of 1981, Article 15. The case of the appellant could not be referred to Review Board because this case was for appointment on regular basis and not on ad hoc basis. The failure of the authorities to side step the application of rule 7 resulted into this exercise which ultimately brought the appellant to grief.
12. The purview of the M.L.I. 21 as stated earlier was to deal with those appointments made during a.
13. Certain period as ad hoc without adopting the normal procedure laid down. We have in extensive referred to the amendment of the earlier rules of 1962 under which the appellant did fall in the category of clause V but since coming into force of the Rules 1974 the appellant was fully eligible on his own merits to be promoted to the rank Tehsilder without any necessity of relaxation of rules in his favour. M.L.I. 21 thus was not attracted to his case as he was never ad hoc appointee. With regard to his suitability the record of the case reveals that he was the most suitable person from all angles. It would` be useful to mention at this stage the views of various officers from time to time who found this office quite suitable for executive appointment and considered capable, industrious and scrupulously honest. We reproduce views and the recommendations.
14. "Mr. S. Muhammad Akram Shah has been spoken of very highly by several D,Cs. In succession, In 1966, Mr. C. A. Saied, P. C. S., then D.C. While recommending him for the post of Naib-Tehsildar termed him as an efficient, obedient, honest and an experienced official, quite suitable for executive appointment. According to Mr. Ahmad Sadiq C S P, who was D.C. Gujrat in 1967, Mr. S. Muhammad Akram Shah is very useful official with executive trend. In September, 1968 Mr. Manzur- ur-Hassan, C.S.P., the then D.C. Gave Mr. Muhammad Akram Shah accelerated promotion due to his superb performance and also recommended him for D.C's Sanad. In 1970, Capt. Syed Naseer Ahmad, C. S. P., the then D. C. Recommended S. Muhammad Akram Shah twice for the post of Naib- Tehsildar. The same D.C. Held a very high opinion of this official. He found him a capable, industrious and scrupulously honest official who is quite intelligent and smart with pleasing behavior. He further described him as conscientious worker who enjoyed good reputation among the officers as well as the public. I entirely agree with my predecessors. I found the official to be efficient, honest and possessing a great deal of initiative. He is a graduate. His promotion would indeed be recognition of an outstanding service record and merit. I strongly recommend him for promotion to the cadre of P C S. (Sd.)
15. Mahbub Ahmad, C.S.P., D. C. Gujrat.
16. 16th August, 1972.
17. ' A highly spoken of official. Although he is not eligible he merits promotion to the P. S. C. In relaxation of rules in view of his excellent record and the strong recommendation by the D.C.
18. (Sd.)
19. F. K. Bandial, Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division.
20. ' I entirely agree with my predecessors. I found the official to be efficient, honest and very noble. He enjoys an enviable reputation for his excellent behavior with his colleagues and the public. In view of his devotion to duty, he has been granted D.C's Sanad. He has a flair for executive work and will prove to be a good revenue officer. I strongly recommend him for the post of Tehsildar.
21. (Sd.)
22. Ijaz Hussain Malik, C. S. P., D.C., Gujrat, 16th March, 1973.
23. ' A highly spoken of official. Has an agricultural/rural bias, with his experience, background and qualifications, he should make a good Tehsildar.
24. (Sd.)
25. F. K. Bandial, Commissioner, RWP Div.
26. 28th March 1973.
27. ' Repeated. S. Muhammad Akram Sbah, B. A. District Revenue Accountant of my office, is very hardworking and honest official with initiative and drive. He is very useful with executive trend and will prove a good Revenue Officer. I recommend him for the post of Tehsildar.
28. (Sd.)
29. S. A. Zulqarnain, D.C., Gujrat.
30. 13th February, 1974.
31. ' Has an excellent record of service and is highly spoken of by his superiors and colleagues. On earlier occasions too he had been recommended for higher positions and responsibilities that he highly deserved. With the experience and qualifications and agricultural/ rural background he should make a good Tehsildar.
32. (Sd.)
33. F. K. Bandial, Commissioner, RWP Div.
34. 15th February, 1974."
35. In the light of our discussions we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the appellant did not fall within the category of those officers in whose cases the review under M.L.I. No, 21 was envisaged as the case of the appellant was submitted to the Review Committee in clear disregard of the rule 7 of 1974 amended rules, therefore, we set aside the impugned order as without any justification, void and of being no legal effect. The result is that the appeal stands accepted and the appellant would be considered to be a Tehsildar w,e.f. The date of his removal from this post as if he was never so removed. He is entitled to all the back benefits permissible under the rules.