M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.--The petitioners in these two petitions, i.e. C.P.S.L. As. Nos.1383 and 1385 of 1983, had been initially recruited as Chowkidars in the Food Department of the Government of the Punjab and had been promoted in 1979 to the post of Food-grain Supervisor. Their order of promotion was, however, cancelled by the Secretary to the Government on 24-4-1983, against which they preferred appeal before the Tribunal but having failed there, are now seeking leave to appeal through these petitions.
2. The case of the petitioners is that they had not been promoted but appointed to the post of Food-grain Supervisor, that their appointment was by the competent authority, i.e. The Deputy Director Food, that they were possessed of the requisite qualification, i.e. Matriculation, and that, therefore, the impugned order of the Secretary, which amounted to termination of their service as Food-grain Supervisor was illegal having been passed without affording them any opportunity of hearing.
3. The orders, on the strength of which the petitioners claim to have been appointed as Food-grain Supervisor, however, show that they had in fact been "promoted" to that post "as a stopgap arrangement"., "subject to clearance by the Regional Promotion Committee" and "without prejudice to the bona fide rights of others". The Tribunal noticing this and observing that the promotions at the relevant time had been necessitated by the food procurement work and were only provisional arrangements, held that the same could not confer any right on the petitioners. Under the relevant rule, which is the West Pakistan Food Department Subordinate Executive Establishment Recruitment Rules, 1962, relied on by learned counsel for the petitioners, the method of recruitment to the post of Food-grain Supervisor is not by promotion but by "initial recruitment". Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that all that was needed to regularise the appointment was to have referred the case of the petitioners for clearance to the Regional Promotion Committee which had not been done in time but could be done even at a later stage and that, therefore, the abrupt cancellation of their promotion was illegal. We see no force in the contentions because their promotion having been on an ad hoc basis, they have no locus standi to question the Government's decision to revert them. Both the petitions are dismissed.