' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Messrs Javed Iqbal and 42 others, as per list attached, have filed this appeal under sections 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which they have impleaded the Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and Punjab Public Service Commission through its Chairman, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal they have prayed that the impugned Notification No, 1-12/80-SOS (IV), dated 6th October, 1983, be set aside as being without any lawful authority, without jurisdiction and void ab initio and the appellants be declared to be Civil Judges in service.
3. Brief facts of the case are that due to shortage of Civil Judges vis-a-vis lengthy procedure of selection of the Punjab Public Service Commission, it attracted the attention of the authorities for making some stop-gap arrangement/appointment for meeting the urgent needs of dispensation of justice. The Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court moved the Government as early as June, 1981, to make some honorary appointments till the time the selectees of the Public Service Commission were available dispensing with the written examination. This proposal could not secure the approval of the high powered Committee headed by the Chief Secretary and was ultimately turned down by the Governor, It was also suggested by the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court that appointments be made directly from the Bar but the same also could not get through.
4. When the Chairman, Punjab Public Service Commission informed the Government that only 13 candidates could qualify the examination against available 42 vacancies, whereas about 600 persons had sat in the examination the Government was again confronted with the same impasse.
To tide over this difficulty, the Governor reluctantly agreed to fill these vacancies on ad hoc basis with clear condition that such appointees would be under obligation to sit in the next competitive examination with further indication that if they failed to do so, they shall have to go back. The appellants were thus appointed on ad hoc basis vide notification, dated 28th June, 1982, placed on record as Annexure "A/4", at page 33 of the appeal. These candidates were medically examined and after they were declared fit, they were posted at various places under the orders of the Lahore High Court. The competitive examination was held on the schedule and all these appellants took part in the same but unfortunately, could not qualify the same according to the requisite standard laid down by the Government and the Punjab Public Service Commission. When the Punjab Public Service Commission, declared the result of the examination officially the Governor of the Punjab, vide notification, dated 6th October, 1983, was pleased to terminate their services, with immediate effect under subsection (ii) of section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, with the observation that these ad hoc Civil Judges have not been able to clear the competitive examination of Civil Judges, which was a pre-requisite for regularization of their services. As no representation lies against the impugned notification, the same having been issued by the Governor himself hence this appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance including the file of their appointments and termination of services as maintained by the Services, General Administration and Information Department.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appointments of the appellants were made in accordance with prescribed method of recruitment as incorporated in the Rules of the Punjab Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1978 read with rule 5 of the West Pakistan Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, therefore, the epithet of the word ad hoc, attached to their appointment orders was redundant, uncalled for and without any legal effect. It was further submitted that the appellants were appointed by the competent authority on the recommen' dations of the Punjab Public Service Commission, therefore, they have acquired a vested right to be regularised in service. It was further submitted that as the Governor of the Punjab, had accepted the recommendations of the Public Service Commission, the Rules stood modified by implication as such the appellants were entitled to be treated as appointees on regular basis. Elaborating this point further, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the procedure for appointments on ad hoc basis was specifically laid down in rule 22 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointments and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, which inter alia, provides that such an appointment has not been made by the "Selection Authority" which undoubtedly, in the case of the appellants, is Public Service Commission. It was further argued that as the appointments were made on the recommendations of the Punjab Public Service Commission who had conducted their competitive examination, such like appointments could not be treated as ad hoc.
7. The point which was highlighted in favour of the appellants was that the pre-requisite of qualifying the next examination and other conditions as laid down in the appointment letters of the appellants, dated 28th June, 1982, 8th July, 1982 and 2nd February, 1983, did not appear in the offer, dated 19th April, 1983. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the next examination meant not the examination which was already announced but the one which had to come later, therefore, it was incumbent upon the Government to have allowed the appellants to sit in the said examination and not to conclude this issue on the result of the examination which stood already announced.
8. To support his contention that when a civil servant had been inducted into service in a prescribed manner, the use of word ad hoc would be redundant and ineffective. He has cited the following rulings
(1) PLD 1971 SC 846.
(2) 1976 SCM R 48 and 212.
(3) PLJ 1978 Lah.
508.
(4) 1981 PLC (C. S.) 731.
(5) 1984 PLC (C. S.) 276.
(6) 1983 PLC (C. S.) 246.
(7) PLJ 1982 (Tr. C) Service 165.
(8) PLD 1966 (W. P.) Lah. 825 and also.
(9) Black's Law Dictionary.
(10) Broom's Legal Maxims, 191.
9. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments submitted by Syed Muhammad Hameed, Deputy Secretary (A) on behalf of the respondents and has submitted that he will have no dispute with the proposition that once a civil servant is recruited in the prescribed manner, the epithet of word ad hoc would be meaningless. According to the learned District Attorney the appellants were never inducted into service in a prescribed manner. Therefore, all the arguments based on the said premises would be misconceived. It has been submitted on his behalf that the appellants appeared in the competitive examination held under the auspices of Punjab Public Service Commission and could not qualify. The persons who did qualify, were inducted into service in a prescribed manner and are continuing as such. In the case of the appellants, it was after a great hesitation that the Governor of the Punjab, agreed to make a stop- gap arrangement to meet the demand of Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, who was pressing hard for the recruitment of Civil Judges, in order to cope with the increasing back-log of civil eases in the province. It has been pointed out by the learned District Attorney that the very reading of the appointment orders makes every thing crystal clear. They were told that :-
(1) the appointments shall be on purely temporary/ad hoc basis for a ' period of six months and the appointees shall have no right to continue in service or have any claim to regular appointment in the service ;
(ii) the service of the appointees shall be liable to termination at any time during the said period of six months without any notice and without any reason being assigned therefor ;
(iii) the appointees shall have to appear in the next competitive examination for Civil Judges to be conducted by the Public Service Commission to qualify themselves for regular appointment. In case they fail to qualify in the next competitive examination with the requisite standard laid down by the Punjab Public Service Commission or acquire a place in the merit list entitling them for regular appointment their ad hoc appointment shall be liable to be terminated immediately after the announcement of the result of the examination even though the period of this ad hoc appointment has not expired.
' With these submissions the learned District Attorney concluded his case and prayed that the appeal be dismissed as being without any merit.
9-A. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and have perused the law so cited by the learned counsel for the appellants with respect, and have no dispute with the proposition that once a person is inducted into service in a prescribed manner the mere word ad hoc attached to his appointment order, would be without any legal effect. This being so, we have examined the case from this angle to find out whether the appellants were inducted into service in a prescribed manner or not. The record of this case reveals that a competitive examination was held and the appellants alongwith others numbering 600 in all, sat in the said competitive examination. The criteria laid down by the Government for this examination was that a person appearing in the same shall have to secure 33% pass marks in each paper with a total aggregate 50% marks in all subjects. The appellants failed to qualify the competitive examination according to the standard so fixed by the Government and only 13 candidates could qualify the examination against the available 42 vacancies. While going through the record of this case, we find that at one stage, it was recommended by the Punjab Public Service Commission to relax this standard by fixing the aggregate to 45% instead of 50% pass marks on the parallel of Federal Government which had reduced the aggregate pass marks in the case of C.S.S. Examination. We have read the note so put up by various officers and find that the Governor of the Punjab, point blank refused to lower the standard of this examination and was firm on this point that those who fulfilled the prerequisite conditions given, could only be declared qualified persons. However, in view of the emergency, the Governor accepted the proposal to fill the vacancies on ad hoc basis to tide over the shortage of Civil Judges. In these circumstances the Governor of the Punjab, asked the Punjab Public Service Commission c to submit the examination record of the appellants and the same was received by him, it was then that he was pleased to issue a notification, dated 28th June, 1982, by which the appellants were inducted into service.
' These appointments were made subject to the following terms and conditions :- "(i) The appointments shall be on purely temporary/ad hoc basis for a period of six months and the appointees shall have no right to continue in service or have any claim to regular appointment in the service.
(ii) The service of the appointees shall be liable to termination at any time during the said period of six months without any notice and without any reason being assigned therefor.
(iii) the appointees shall have to appear in the next competitive examination for Civil Judges to be conducted by Punjab Public Service Commission to qualify themselves for regular appointment. In case they fail to qualify in the next competitive examination with the requisite standard laid down by the Punjab Public Service Commission or acquire a place in the merit list entitling them for regular appointment their ad hoc appointment shall be liable to be terminated immediately after the announcement of the result of the examination even though the period of this ad hoc appointment has not expired.
(iv) Such of the appointees as become entitled to regular appointment under sub-para. (ii) above, shall be appointed according to the order of merit assigned by the Commission and from the date such appointment is made on regular basis. The period of the present ad hoc appointment shall not be counted towards seniority.
(3) The above offer holds good for a period of one month from the date of issue of this Notification.
In case the offer is acceptable the appointees on the aforementioned terms and conditions, they should report for duty to the Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore, who will issue their posting orders."
10. The first three conditions so laid in the appointment orders are only relevant for the purpose of this appeal, therefore, we will not discuss condition No, (iv) and concluding para. 3 for the said notification. The very reading of these conditions leaves no room for any doubt that the appellants were clearly told that they were being appointed on ad hoc basis for a period of six months and their services could be terminated before such period stood completed without assigning any reasons thereof. They were also made clear that they shall have to appear in the next competitive examination of Civil Judges to be conducted by the Punjab Public Service Commission to qualify for regular appointments. It was again reiterated that in case they failed to do so, their services were liable to be terminated. It is also on the record that the appointments of the appellants were extended from time to time after the expiry of six months.
11. We have examined the claim of the appellants that they were inducted into service in a prescribed manner but do not find the same as proved. Prescribed manner means that the appellants should sit in the competitive examination and qualify the same. After they had stood qualified, according to the second requirement, the Public Service Commission should have recommended their case to Governor for their appointments in the service. The Governor was under no obligation to accept the recommendations but once he accepted the same and appointed such civil servants to posts, the use of word ad hoc temporary, would not change the status of the said civil servants who would be entitled to be declared as inducted into service in a prescribed manner on regular basis. According to the record of this case so produced before us, this procedure has been fulfilled in the case of only 13 qualified candidates. We have seen the recommendations letter of these 13 candidates as well as the letter regarding sending the record of examination of the appellants to the Governor of the Punjab, and find that in the case of 13 persons who had qualified the examination, there were positive recommendations in their favour whereas nothing of this kind has been made by the Punjab Public Service Commission vis-a-vis the case of the appellants.- What the Punjab Public Service Commission did, was that they forwarded their record of examination to the Governor. This being so established from the record, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the appellants were inducted into service in a prescribed manner.
12. The claim of the appellants stands further falsified with regard to the regular appointments when we find from the record so produced before us by the respondents that their appointments were extended from time to time after a period of 6 months. There is a letter of Lahore High Court on the record by which it was informed to the Governor that as the period of the appellants' appointment has not been extended although the result of the competitive examination in which they took part, has been declared all the court work so done by them, would be illegal. It was only then the Governor extended the period of their ad hoc appointments for a further period of six months, and waited for the official result of their examination from the Punjab Public Service Commission. As soon as the Public Service Commission declared the result in official manner and indicated that all the appellants have failed to achieve the requisite standard of pass marks, it was only then that the Governor of the Punjab issued the impugned notification. We further find that the appellants accepted their appointments with all the conditions so attached to it. If they had any case for regular appointments it was incumbent upon them to say so and not to accept implicitly the appointment orders to join service conditionally under the same. It does not lie in their mouth to come out today and say that they have been denied their rights or their interests have been marred although they were regular appointees in the prescribed manner.
13. With regard to the point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and vehemently argued by him that the word next examination would not mean the examination which had already been announced but the one which had to come after they would join service, it will be sufficient to say that the appellants could claim this privilege and could have refused to sit in the said examination and it was for the Government to decide the issue one way or the other at that relevant time but in the present case all the appellants did participate in the examination without any demur but when they once again failed in the same, they came out with a grievance that as they were busy in their court work they were not left with sufficient time to prepare for the said examination. In our considered opinion, it would have been fair if they would have come with this argument at the proper time that they could not prepare for the examination. Raising of such like pleas at this belated stage would be nothing but an afterthought. We are very clear in our minds that-
(a) the appellants were recruited as ad hoc Civil Judges and not as regular Civil Judges as contended by them ;
(b) it has never been the intention of the Government at any stage/level to recruit them as regular Civil Judges ;
(c) the proposal was not initiated by the Government. It was initiated by the Chairman, Public Service Commission personally and only with a view to explain his position regarding the low result of the examination and suggested the way out of the impasse, as is apparent from his letter at Annexure 'A', on the file.
14. We are also satisfied that the appellants were never recommended for regular appointments but their cases were just submitted as required by the Governor. The letter dated 19th April, 1982, referred to by the appellants in their appeal, was addressed to the Director, Health Services Punjab, for medical check up/fitness. Even this letter clearly indicates that the recommendations of. The Public Service Commission, were for their appointments as ad hoc Civil Judges. We are of the considered opinion that the word ad hoc was used correctly and legally and in accordance with the law and rules on the subject, the condition of appearing in the competitive examination was validly imposed upon them.
15. In view of the above detailed discussions, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.