1. ' MUSHTAK ALI KAZI (CHAIRMAN).--These are two connected appeals filed by the appellant, a Grade-18 officer in the Department of 'Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, Government of Sind, regarding regularisation of his ad-hoc appointment.
2. ' The appellant was originally appointed in the Government of Sind on 23rd January, 1953 and this post was subsequently brought in Cirade-17. His case for promotion was considered by the D. P. C.
3. At its meeting held on 9th June, 1975 and he was approved for promotion to Grade-18 on ad-hoc basis against a post lying vacant and reserved for direct recruitment, till a direct recruit could be selected by the Sind Public Service Commission. The Government accepted the recommendation and promoted the appellant on ad-hoc basis under notification dated 30th August, 1975.
4. Subsequently, the D. P. C. At its meeting held on 15th June, 1978 observed that a post in Grad-18 would be available on 1st June, 1978 due to retirement of Mr. Qutubuddin who was proceeding on L.
5. P. R. With effect from 30th July, 1978 and the ad-hoc promotion of the appellant be regularised in Grade-18 against that post with effect from 1st July, 1978. This proposal was not, however, accepted by the Government and the appellant continued on ad-hoc basis. Since the ad-hoc officers had no claim to seniority the name of the appellant was not included in the seniority list as seniority list of 20th January, 1983. The appellant, therefore, preferred a departmental appeal dated 28th February, 1983 to the Chief Secretary. After waiting for 90 days the appellant preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal on 21st June, 1983. Thereafter the question of regularisation of promotion of officers to Garde-18 in Agriculture, Livestock. And Fisheries Department was processed in the S&GAD. It was found that in the seniority list of Grade-17 Officers Messrs Wali Muhammad Ansari, Ajmal Baloch and R. A. Khan were senior to the appellant and they too were not even considered by the D. P. C. In its meeting held on 15th. June, 1978. The above three persons were, therefore, cleared by the D. P. C. For promotion subsequently and there was no post against which, Mr. Ghalib Hyder could be considered for promotion. Thus, although, Mr. Ghalib Hyder had been working against a Grade-18 post on ad-hoc basis and the D. P. C. Had earlier recommended the regularisation of his promotion against the next vacant post that occurred, this recommendation was not accepted by the Government and officers senior to the appellant in Grade-17 were instead promoted to Grade-18. After clearance by the D. P. C. At its subsequent meeting the appellant was, however, subsequently promoted to National Pay Scale 18 on regular basis with effect from 8th February, 1984. The appellant became junior to Messrs Zahoor Muhammad Khan, Ghulam Muhammad Memon and Muhammad Nawaz Baloch, respondents, who were promoted subsequent to 1st July, 1978.
6. ' It is the case of the appellant that since he was taken up on ad hoc basis in Grade-18 and he acted against a clear vacancy with effect from 1st July, 1978 he should be assigned his seniority in Grade-I8 with effect from the said date. That in case his post cannot be regularised from the date of his ad hoc promotion with effect from 1st September, 1975 he should be confirmed from the date of continuous officiation against a substantive vacancy-with effect from 1st July, 1978. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the famous case of Khushi Muhammad , decided by the Supreme Court. ##TS# # The appellant was admittedly appointed by promotion on ad-hoc basis as stopgap arrangement against a post reserved for direct recruitment as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Saifuddin v. Secretary to Government of Punjab , right to seniority cannot be claimed on basis of ad-hoc appointment. Such appointments being outside the preview of the rules cannot for any purpose be treated as conferring a benefit under the rules. They cannot even claim their seniority from the date of their appointment as on ad-hoc basis whether the appointment was continuous or not. ##TE# # ' There is no doubt that the departmental promotion committee had recommended the case of the appellant for regularisation against a permanent vacancy, with effect from 1st July, 1978 but the Government did not accept the recommendation of the D. P. C. The case of officers senior to the appellant in Grade-17 which was the substantive grade of the appellant had not been considered at that meeting. ##TS# # The appellant cannot, therefore, claim seniority simply on the recommendation of the D. P. C. The Government is not bound by that recommendation and mere recommendation does not confer any rights on the appellant. ##TE# # Nor does the recommendation alter the appointment of the appellant on ad hoc basis to an appointment on officiating basis so as to give him right of confirmation from the date of continuous officiating against a substantive vacancy in Grade-18. It was, however, the discretion of the Government to have accepted the recommendation of the D. P. C. In view of the fact that the appellant was already acting on ad hoc basis in N. P. S. 18 at a time when the respondents were still occupying Grade-17 posts. ##TS# # It is not however, open to the Service Tribunal to order promotion of there' appellant on officiating or regular basis as under section 4(b) of the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973 determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to held a particular post or grade is outside the powers of the Tribunal. ##TE# # In the result both the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. PLD 1970 SC 203 1982 SCMR 8771 2 1 2