' R. M. ISHAQUE (MEMBER).-The above two appeals have been filed by Mr. Munawar Ali son of Nazar Ali under section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act 1973, Appeal No, 25/83 deals with the question of reversion of the appellant and Appeal No, 39/83 deals with the question of his seniority. Since these two appeals are connected they were heard in continuation and will be disposed of in one judgment. Brief facts of the case as stated are as under :- ' The Advocate for the appellant states that the appellant was appointed as Junior Clerk in April, 1954 and was posted as Senior Clerk in 1958. In 1973 he was offered the post of an Accountant in Sind Medical College which he refused. In December, 1973 he was promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer on ad hoc basis. He alleged that the appellant was duly qualified for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. His appointment was initially for 6 months but it continued for about 6 years on ad hoc basis. In May, 1978 the case of the appellant was set up for scrutiny under Martial Law Order No,
55. The Selection Committee constituted under the above order recommended that the appellant be reverted to his original post in terms of sub-para. II of para. 6 of M.L.O.
55. On this the then Secretary, Health reverted him from the post of Assistant Accounts Officer Grade-16 and posted him as intendant Grade-11 in the Dow Medical College with immediate effect vide notification, dated 27th June, 1979.
' The appellant continued to discharge his duties as Superintendent for about 3 and half years from 1st July, 1979 to 27th November, 1982. During this period the post of Superintendent in Sind was upgraded from Grade-11 to Grade-16.
' All of a sudden the Secretary, Health Government of Sind reviewed the notification, dated 27th June, 1979 and reverted the appellant to the post of Senior Clerk in Dow Medical College. The appellant submitted an appeal to the Chief Secretary, Government of Sind but no decision was forthcoming and on expiry of 90 days he came in appeal to this Tribunal.
' The Advocate for the appellant has raised various legal pleas in support of his appeal. It was pleaded that whatever was the recommendation of the Select Committee set up under M.L,O.-55 it was implemented and the appellant was posted as Superintendent. On 27th November, 1982 this order was recalled and superseding the notification, dated 27th June, 1979 and the appellant was reverted as Senior Clerk. This was illegal as the M.L.O.-55 had expired vide Notification Nos, S.
0. IX-R E G (S&GAD) 4/34-77-H, dated 10th March, 1980 and S. O. IX-R E G (S&GAD) 4/34-77 (Pt. II), dated 11th March, 1980 and the Secretary Health acted without any jurisdiction. The Notification, dated 27th November, 1982 does not give any reason for supersession of the earlier notification, dated 27th June, 1979. The appellant was reverted without any show-cause notice. The Advocate for the appellant relied on PLD 1982 Lah. 664 and PLD 1984 Kar. 114 and argued that an order passed and acted upon cannot be reviewed.
' The A. A.-G. For the Government argued that the Select Committee under M.L.O.-55 recommended the appellant to be reverted to his original post namely Senior Clerk from which post he was promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer on ad hoc basis in the Dow Medical College. There were other Senior Clerks who were Senior to the appellant. The appellant was not due for promotion to the post of Superintendent. The promotion was made without the recommendation of the Department Promotion Committee and without following the prescribed procedure. He, therefore, argued that the appellant could not have been posted as Superintendent and at the most his appointment as a Superintendent was ad hoc and therefore he was liable to reversion without any notice under section 12 (2) of the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973, and the Government was competent to revert him without assigning any reason or giving any notice.
' The Secretary Health was bound to pass order in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee and he was not competent to differ from the same and the Select Committee had recommended him for the post of Senior Clerk and not that of Superintendent. If a mistake was committed by the Government the same could be corrected under the provisions of section 20 of General Clauses Act. The mere appointment or reversion as Superintendent does not give him a vested right. By law a vested right is created only if the person is appointed according to the prescribed procedure after satisfying the condition for such appointment. His appointment as super intendant in Dow Medical College was not according to the prescribed manner as the appellant did not have any vested right in the post of the Superintendent. The A. A.-G. Wanted to submit the Seniority list of Dow Medical College which he did on the subsequent date of hearing.
' The A. A.-G. Further argued that the validity of M.L.O.-55 did not expire and that it continued to be in force. The Government had only fixed the time limit for the review work to be completed and there was no time limit for passing the order or taking decision thereafter.
' The case came up for hearing on 18th July, 1984 when the appellant argued it himself. He admitted that he was not the senior most in Dow Medical College and he also admitted that he was not yet confirmed as Superintendent. He was at serial No, 4 of the Seniority list. The appellant argued that he had put in about 25 years of service and had served as an Assistant Accounts Officer for about 5 and half years. He had unblemished record of service. He argued that once he was posted as Superintendent and the order was acted upon the same could not be recalled. He referred to the judgment of this Tribunal in Appeal No, 5/81 Mr. Anwar All Shaikh v. Province of Sind. He placed reliance on PLD 1969 Kar.
407. He was condemned unheard and that he could not be reverted to the post of Senior Clerk without any show-cause notice. He placed reliance on PLD 1982 A J K 124 as the action taken by the Government in reverting him vide notification, dated 27th November, 1982 was illegal.
' The A. A.-G. Reported his arguments and stated that his appointment as a Superintendent was ad hoc and he could be reverted under section 12 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act. If it was not regarded as ad hoc at the most it was a temporary appointment as he had not gone through the proper procedure. The A. A.-G. Further argued that the action was taken under M.L.O. 55 and therefore this Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The A.A.-G., therefore, pressed that the appeal be dismissed as not maintainable.
"Appeal No, 39/83"
' The appellant argued that there should be a common Seniority list of both Sind Medical College 'and Dow Medical College. He quoted Khushi Muhammad v. General Manager . He argued that he was senior most in the Sind Medical College. It was the Government who posted him in the Dow Medical College where he was not senior most and that he claimed his seniority of Sind Medical College. By reversion as Senior Clerk in Dow Medical College his juniors have become senior to him.
He quoted the case of respondent No, 4 who was his junior, appointed on 28th May, 1973 as cashier in Dow Medical College but now he has' become Superintendent in that College. He further argued that two posts of Superintendent one in each college are vacant. He admitted that separate seniority lists are kept for each college.
The A.A.-G. Argued that there are different Medical Colleges in the province of Sind and the seniority lists are separate for each college. At the time of reversion the appellant was in Grade-11 as Superintendent and he did not hold any lien in the Sind Medical and therefore he cannot ask for posting in that college. He was an Assistant Accounts Officer on ad hoc basis in Sind Medical College and therefore he cannot claim seniority of that college. Seniority is to be counted from the date of regular appointment only. H had, therefore, no right to claim seniority with the staff of Sind Medical College. He was posted as Superintendent in Dow Medical College by Secretary Health who was competent to order transfer and posting.
' First of all, before we examine the case on merits, the question of jurisdiction of this Tribunal is to be decided. For this purpose it is to be examined as to whether the impugned order was passed or was purported to have been passed under M.L.O.
55. The A.A.-G. Has taken the plea that the appeal is barred by the provision of Article 15 of the Provisional Constitutional Order, 1981, because the impugned order appealed against was passed in pursuance of M. L.
0. 55 and ,therefore, this is not appealable before this Tribunal. Article 15 (2) of the Provisional Constitutional Order is reproduced below : "All orders made, proceedings taken and done by any authority, or by any person, which were made, taken or done, or purported to have been made, taken or done, on or after the fifth day of July, 1977, in exercise of the powers derived from any President's Orders, Order of the Chief Martial Law Administrator, Martial Law Regulations, Law Orders, enactments, notifications, result s or bye- laws, or in execution of any orders made or sentences passed by any authority in the exercise or purported exercise of powers as aforesaid shall, notwithstanding any judgment of any Court, be deemed always to have been validly made, taken or done and shall not be called in question in any Court on any ground whatsoever, provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to transactions past and closed."
' Now the question is whether the impugned notification, dated 27th November, 1982 was passed in pursuance of M. L.
0. 55 or not. The Advocate for the appellant Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid argued that M.L.O. 55 had expired and ceased to exist, therefore, the impugned order could not have been passed in pursuance of M.L.O.
55. He preferred to Notification dated 10th March, 1980 and 11th March, 1980 issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Sind. A perusal of these notifications indicate that the Martial Law1 Administrator Zone 'C' has set time limit for the Sind Public Service Commission, appropriate Board/Committee and Select Committee to finalise the review of all pending cases within the time limit. The last date given was 30th June, 1980. From the above it is clear that the M.L.O.-55 has not expired but only a time limit was given to the various review committees to complete their work. No time limit was fixed for competent authority to take decisions on the recommendations of the Review Committee.
' The Select Committee constituted under M.L.O. 55 to review the case of the appellant had made the following recommendations as incorporated in the notification, dated 27th June, 1979.
"Mr. Munawar, Ali states that he had 20 years experience in the Accounts and that he was initially appointed as Senior Clerk in 1958 and that view of his past experience in the accounts he was appointed an instant Accounts Officer in the Sind Medical College, Karachi. Since Mr. Munawar Ali does not possess the required qualification for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer, he may be reverted back to his original post in terms of sub-para. (ii) of para. 6 M.L.O.
55."
On receipt of the above recommendation the Secretary Health should have reverted the appellant to his original post from which he was appointed as Assistant Accounts Officer namely the post of Senior Clerk in Dow Medical College, Karachi, instead the then Secretary Health posted him as Superintendent, Grade-11. Subsequently the Government rectified this mistake by issuing the impugned notification, dated 27th November, 1982. Thus it is clear that the impugned order was passed in pursuance of action taken under the M.L.O. 55 although it was passed after a period of about 3 and half years.
' Since this action has been taken in pursuance of M.L.O. 55, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable with no order as to cost.
As regards Appeal No, 39 of 1983 the appellant claims seniority of Sind Medical College, Karachi, where he has worked as Assistant Accounts Officer. It is rightly argued by the A.A.-G. That the appellant had no lien in the Sind Medical College, Karachi and that he was posted only on ad hoc basis. Therefore, he cannot claim that seniority. In the result this appeal is also dismissed with no order as to costs. PLD 1970 SC 203