' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-- The appellant has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which she has impleaded Secretary, Health, Government of the Punjab, Principal, Fatima Jinnah Medical College, Lahore and Miss Naheed Rizvi, Demonstrator, Fatima Jinnah Medical College for Women, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal she has prayed that the termination from service of the appellant be set aside as being illegal and without jurisdiction and the appellant be declared to have been confirmed in her appointment as Demonstrator in Bio-Chemistry w,e,f, 24-5-1981.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant who is an M.Sc. Came forward in response to an advertisement for the post of Demonstrator in Bio-Chemistry in May, 1979 and applied for the said post and was selected. At the relevant time Fatima Jinnah Medical College was managed and run by a Government body. The appointment of the appellant for the said post was made on temporary basis and she was put on probation for a period of 2 years. During her stay in the said post the appellant was also selected, by the Public Service Commission and was offered an appointment as Demonstrator in Nishtar Medical College, Multan but the appellant declined to go there. While she was serving at Lahore vide letter, dated 5-1-1982 respondent No, 2 informed the appellant that her appointment is against leave vacancy therefore, she was relieved from duties w,e,f, 19-12-1982. The appellant made a representation against the action of respondent No,2 but the petition was rejected. She also represented to the Minister for Health as well as she took the case to Lahore High Court through a writ petition No, 4858 of 1982. However, she failed before both the forums and her writ petition was disposed of by Mr. Justice Gul Muhammad with the direction to file an appeal to the Service Tribunal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney with the assistance of the representative of the Department and have also perused the record of the office carefully. The learned counsel has submitted that although the appellant was temporary civil servant her services could not be terminated without giving her a month notice as laid down in section 10(3) of the Civil Servants Act, 1974. It has further been argued that as the appellant has successfully completed the probation period the Government was under obligation to confirm her to the post which she was so occupying. The learned counsel further 'submitted that the plea of the Government that appellant was working against a leave vacancy has no mention in the advertisement and appellant had never considered herself against a leave vacancy. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has argued that the claim of the appellant is misconceived because it is on record under her own signatures that she was aware of the fact that she was working against a leave vacancy. According to the learned District Attorney a person working against a leave vacancy his/her services would liable to be terminated when the permanent incumbent of the post reports for duty. It has also been vehemently argued on behalf of District Attorney that the appellant declined to go to Nishtar Medical College, Multan although she was selected by the Public Service Commission and now she is not on the road but working as Demonstrator in Bio-Chemistry where she is soon going to be regularized. It has further been argued that the case of the appellant is badly time-barred therefore, she cannot seek remedy against a cause of action relating to year 1982. According to learned District Attorney the appeal is time-barred by eight months.
5. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and first look to the legal objection so raised against the appellant on the point of limitation. The fact of the matter is that her representation was rejected by the Government on 22-6-1982 but she continued to make useless efforts by applying to the Minister concerned to review her case. The law point on this issue is very clear that if a civil servant chooses to seek remedy at his/her whim and fancy the time so spent in that exercise would not be counted towards the period of limitation. We have also found that her writ petition was disposed by the Lahore High Court on 21-12-1982 but still she did not avail the remedy to file the appeal to this Tribunal, at the earliest. In view of these two solid objections raised by the District Attorney we are of the considered opinion that the appeal before us is time-barred and is liable to fail at this stage. We have reached this conclusion after going through the application filed by the petitioner under section 5 of the Limitation Act and we do not find any cogent reason to condone the delay.
6. With regard to the merits of the case we have perused Annexure-2 in which the appellant herself admitted that she was working as demonstrator against leave vacancy of Miss Naheed who was on deputation for M.A. Philosophy course. Similarly in Annexure-3 the appellant has again accepted this fact that she was working in place of Naheed Rizvi and would like to be accommodated in place of Mumtaz Akram who has also gone to deputation. In view of her own admission which has been placed on record, we have no hesitation to hold that her termination from service is fully justified as she was working against a leave B vacancy and which was liable to be terminated when permanent incumbent reported for duty.
7. The appellant is not on the record but is working now as demonstrator in Bio-Chemistry and requests for regularization of her services and to be declared as on permanent basis since the day of her appointment against the leave vacancy. It is nothing but a desire which cannot be accepted as being without any merits.
8. The result is we dismiss the appeal as having no substance. Howsoever, there will be no order as to costs.