SARFRAZ HASAN (MEMBER).--M/s. Anwar s/o Nazar Muhammad c/o Riaz Ahmed Clerk Khanwah Division Sahiwal and Muhammad Tufail s/o Muhammad Sultan resident of Meraj Colony Tehsil Depalpur District Okara have filed these appeals under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act 1974, in which they have impleaded Superintending Engineer; Depalpur, Canal Circle and Chief Engineer Irrigation Department, Lahore as respondents Nos.1 and 2 respectively.
2. By virtue of these appeals M/s. Anwar Ali and Muhammad Tufail have prayed that order dated 17-12-1985 passed by respondent No.1 (Annexure 'A' of appeal) terminating their ad hoc appointments with immediate effect may be set aside.
3. The facts of both the appeals are similar and are based on one and the same impugned order dated 17-12-1985. Therefore both the appeals are disposed of in this judgment.
4. The facts of these cases are that appointment orders of M/s. Anwar Ali and Muhammad Tufail as temporary junior clerks on ad hoc basis were issued on 14-5-1985 and 31-3-1985 respectively.
However vide his order No.S.E.DCC, Lahore 10999-100/5EG, dated 17-12-1985 respondent No.1 terminated the ad hoc appointment of the appellants with immediate effect on the ground that they had not been selected by the Departmental Selection Committee in its meeting held on 14-12- 1985.
Aggrieved by this order M/s. Anwar Ali and Muhammad Tufail went in appeal before respondent No.2. However, no decision on the appeals was conveyed to the appellants despite lapse of 90 days. Hence these appeals before this Tribunal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants during the preliminary hearing and have also perused the parawise comments on the appeals and other relevant record submitted by the respondents.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted the following main points during the preliminary hearing:--
(i) The Departmental Selection Committee mentioned in the impugned order dated 17-12-1985 was not constituted according to rules 3 and 4 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. Therefore, the order passed by the Departmental Selection Committee was illegal.
(ii) In the impugned order dated 17-12-1985, no reason was given why the appellants were not selected by the Departmental Selection Committee.
(i.e) Undue favour was shown to candidate Bisalat Muhammad Butt who happened to be the son of the Office Superintendent of respondent No.1. Similarly, undue favour was shown to candidate Muhammad Saleem who was nephew of Head Clerk in the Office of respondent No.1
7. Parawise comments submitted by the respondents and other connected record of the cases produced before us show that the Departmental Selection Committee was duly constituted and no undue favour was shown to M/s. Bisalat Muhammad Butt and Muhammad Saleem. In this connection attention is invited to the following points: -
(i) Vide his letter No. 1944/Admn. 11/75/9690/72/63 dated 10-5-1975 the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Lahore Zone appointed a Selection Committee consisting of two Superintending Engineers and one Executive Engineer. Vide his No. 9932-33/5-EG, dated 13-11-1985, the Chairman of the Departmental Selection Committee issued written notices to the Members of the Committee.
The minutes of the Selection Committee meeting held on 14-12-1985 show that Chairman and the two members of the Committee were present during the meeting and in token of their presence all three have signed the minutes which contain the recommendations of the Committee.
(ii)As the appellants had not been selected by the Departmental Selection Committee, the ad hoc appointments of M/s. Anwar Ali and Muhammad Tufail were terminated with immediate effect in accordance with their appointment orders dated 14-5-1985 and 31-3-1985 respectively. According to para 2 of their appointment orders, their appointments were "subject to revocation at any time by the competent authority without assigning any reasons". Therefore, it was not necessary to give any detailed reasons explaining termination of their ad hoc appointments.
(i.e) Applications for vacancies of Junior Clerks in the Depalpur Canal Circle were invited through Employment Exchanges and District Armed Forces, Lahore, Kasur/Okara/Sahiwal. No objection certificate in respect of these vacancies was also received from Services & General Admn.
Department. All the candidates were put to type test on 10-12-1985 and only those candidates who qualified the type test were called for interview on 14-12-1985.
(iv) The record shows that during interview, the Departmental Selection Committee was guided by the Marking System laid down by S&GAD in its letter No. SOR-III-6-3/73, dated 2-4-1975. In this letter, S&GAD has prescribed specific marks for education and experience of candidates. For instance 60 marks are prescribed for first division Matriculate, 36 marks for third division Matriculate and 10 additional marks for candidate with one step higher qualification. Similarly, specific marks have been laid down for one year, two years and three years experience. Only 10 marks are allowed for assessm ent during interview.
The Departmental Selection Committee cannot go beyond the marking system laid down by S&GAD. The only area of discretion is interview by the Committee which carries only 10 marks. The appellants could not compete successfully with Bisalat Muhammad Butt and Muhammad Saleem as they possessed higher educational qualifications. The record also shows that Bisalat Muhammad Butt and Muhammad Saleem scored higher marks in the type test.
8. Keeping in view the detailed analysis of the case given above, we have come to the conclusion that there is no force in the appeals. Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed in limine.