' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-- Ashiq Hussain has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Chief Engineer, North Zone, Government of the Punjab, Highway Department, Lahore and the Director Administration (M), Government of the Punjab, Highway Department, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the orders dated 25-9-1983 and 8-11-1983, impugned in the present appeal be set aside, and the appellant be reinstated in service with consequential benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was selected by the Departmental Selection Committee in respect of ministerial/technical establishment, Office of the Chief Land Acquisition and Control Officer, Highway Department Lahore (details are at Annexure 'A'). The appellant was appointed as a temporary Accounts Clerk in National Pay Scale No,7 vide Office Order No,978/CLACO, dated 5-3-1983 by the Chief Land Acquisition and Control Officer, Highway Department, Punjab, Lahore and also appellant's upper age was relaxed vide Office Order No,974/CLA & CO, dated 5-3-1983, by the Chief Land Acquisition and Control Officer to the extent of 9 years 9 months and 11 days with effect from 5-3-1983, as a special case. However, vide Order No,173/R (3), dated 25-9-1983, issued by the Director Administration (North), Highway Department, Punjab, Lahore, the services of the appellant were terminated with immediate effect due to being unqualified and overage. The appellant made an appeal to the Chief Engineer, North Zone, Highway Department, Punjab, Lahore which was rejected vide rder dated 8-11-1983. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties i,e,, Syed Jamshed Ali, counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.G.
Humayun, District Attorney, on behalf of the respondents.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was appointed, Accounts Clerk on the recommendations of the Departmental Selection Committee.
Thus, his appointment was on regular basis and the appellant's service could not be terminated as has been done by the respondents on the plea that the appellant was unqualified and overage. He has submitted that relaxation of overage was given by the Chief Land Acquisition and Control Officer, Highway Department, hence the order of termination of the appellant, is misconceived because the upper age limit was relaxed by the competent authority and also the qualifications were checked by the Selection Committee, before the appointment of the appellant was recommended for the said post. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the order of termination of services of the appellant is unlawful. The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the termination order is also against the principle of animus revertendi, as the appellant's appointment once having been made by the competent authority could not be recalled on the pretext that the appellant was overage. To substantiate this plea, reliance has been placed on PLD 1969 SC 407 and 1980 PLC (C.S.)
105. He has also submitted that there are a number of judgments of the Superior Courts on the point that once an order has been implemented and acted upon it cannot be recalled. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that keeping all the above facts in view the appointment of the appellant was regular one which could not be terminated under the rules and hence the termination order of the appellant is arbitrary, unlawful and be quashed.
6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has stoutly resisted the above plea of the learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the appointment order dated 5-3-1983 of the appellant clearly shows that the appellant was appointed on purely temporary basis which were terminated only after a period of seven months, that too when it was found that the relaxation of the upper age limit for 9 years 9 months and 11 days was not accorded by the competent authority.
This relaxation of upper age limit was accorded by the Chief Land Acquisition and Control Officer, Highway Department, Punjab, Lahore which was not the competent authority for the same as the power of relaxation of this age limit rested with the Government. Thus, the appellant was appointed in haste, defectively, as the relaxation of upper age was not obtained from the competent authority. Hence his appointment was irregular. It has also been submitted by the learned District Attorney that even ignoring the above irregularity this appointment was purely temporary and could be terminated at any time. Concluding his arguments it has been submitted by the learned District Attorney that the termination order of the appellant is a correct, lawful order and no exception can be taken against the same.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record of this case. We have perused the appointment order of the appellant, as an Accounts Clerk, dated 5-3-1983 and find that the appointment of the appellant was purely temporary. Also relaxation of age limit upto the extent of 9 years 9 months and 11 days with effect from 5-3-1983, was not accorded by the competent authority; as the Government was the competent authority for relaxation of the same. Thus, we find that the appellant was appointed as Accounts Clerk on temporary basis and with the defect that the relaxation of upper age limit was not accorded by the competent authority. His termination order was passed within 7 months and the appellant was a temporary employee. Hence, we find that the termination order is a lawful one and no exception can be taken against this order.
8. The upshot of the above analysis of the case is that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such.
' There are no order as to costs.