1. MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Appellant Ghulam Murtaza Abro was appointed as Librarian at the Ojha Institute of Chest Diseases, Karachi in a temporary post as stopgap arrangement for a period of six months vide order, dated 19th November, 1980. However, his continuance in the service was subject to relaxation of his upper age limit. He was older for the appointment by 8 years, one month and two days. In December, 1984 the Directorate of Health Services took up the case of relaxation of his upper age limit with the Secretary Health Department, Government of Sind. But before the necessary relaxation was made (vide order, dated 29th July, 1985) by the Chief Secretary, his services were terminated w.e.f. 25-5-1985 by the impugned order. The appellant challenged this order of termination in his representation to respondent No. 2. After his representation was rejected, he preferred appeal to the respondent No. 1 but that too failed vide order, dated 5-11-1985. It is in the above factual background that the appellant has come in this appeal before the Tribunal.
2. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.A.-G. The appeal was dismissed by short order, dated 17-9-1986 for reasons to be recorded separately.
3. Following are the reasons in support of the said short order.
4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the termination of the appellant's services being without show-cause notice was illegal and in contravention of the conditions of his appointment. The further submitted that before the impugned order was passed, the Directorate Health Services had already recommended to the Government for relaxation of upper age limit of the appellant showing thereby that the appellant was to be continued in service even after the expiry of the initial period of his appointment (i.e. Six months). The learned counsel also drew our attention to the Letter No. E-II/ (PF-7)/5557/58, dated 24th August, 1985 written by the Director, Health Services to the Secretary, Health Department wherein the Secretary had been told that the services of the appellant were terminated on expiry of the term of his ad hoc appointment because of his unsatisfactory work and conduct. The learned counsel, therefore, argued that in such a case the appellant was entitled to show-cause notice before terminating of his services.
5. The impugned order by which the appellant was appointed is couched in the following words:-- "Mr. Ghulam Murtaza Abro s/o Late Din Muhammad Abro is hereby appointed as Librarian at Rs.590 of Rs.590-26-1,110 in (BPS-8) at Ojha Institute of Chest Diseases, Karachi against vacant post on the following terms and conditions:
(1) His appointment is purely temporary as stopgap arrangement for 6 months.
(2) His further continuance in service will be subject to relaxation of his upper age by the Government.
(3) In case his appointment is regularized he will be governed by the services Rules applicable to the Sind Civil Servants."
6. It is clear from the above order that the appointment of appellant was made for a specified period of six months purely on temporary basis and as a stopgap arrangement. Such appointment can appropriately be termed as 'ad hoc appointment' which, as defined, in clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 2 of the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) "means appointment of a duly qualified person made otherwise than in accordance with the prescribed method of recruitment, pending the recruitment in accordance with such method". In this connection reference may also be made to Part IV of the Sind Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules). Rule 20 appearing under the said part reads as under:-- "Short term vacancies in the posts falling within the purview of the Commission and vacancies occurring as a result of creation of temporary posts or a period not exceeding six months may be filled by the appointing authority otherwise than through the Commission on a purely temporary basis after advertising the vacancy."
7. Although the appointment of the appellant did not fall with the purview of the Commission yet on the principle laid down in the above Rule his appointment was purely temporary for a period of six months as a stopgap arrangement, and this appointment was obviously made otherwise than through the relevant departmental Selection Committee. The question arises whether for terminating such appointment show-cause notice was called for. Section 11 of the said Act deals with terminating of service of a civil servant without notice. As per clause (ii) of the said section, the service of the civil servant may be terminated without notice at expiry of initial or extended period of his employment. Since the appellant was appointed initially for a period of six months, his appointment could be terminated without notice on expiry of that period. IB This is precisely what had happened in the appellant's case.
8. As pointed out above his appointment was made on 19th November, 1984 for a period of six months which obviously expired on 18th May, 1985. However, his services were terminated 7 days later i.e. w.e.f. 25th May, 1985. Thus, the impugned order of the appellant's termination of service was not only in accordance with the requirements of the law as mentioned above but was also within the four corners of the conditions on which the appellant's appointment was based. Merely because the appellant's case was recommended for relaxation of his upper age limit, it could not be assumed that his appointment was extended beyond six months. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was untenable inasmuch as that recommendation for relaxation of appellant's age limit had actually followed the decision of the Directorate Health Services to continue the appellant in service. We regret we cannot subscribe to this view. There is nothing on record to indicate that any such decision was taken or any such order for extension for appellant's service was passed. May be the reference for relaxation of his upper age limit was noted in anticipation of the possibility of his continuance in service. But somehow it is clear from the report of the Directorate submitted to the Government as referred to above that the performance of the appellant was not satisfactory and, therefore, his services were terminated. His appointment being purely temporary as a stopgap arrangement, he was not entitled to show-cause notice. Even otherwise as is clear from the impugned order the termination of his service is not accompanied by stigma. It is the termination of service simpliciter.
9. For the above reasons the appeal being without merit was dismissed by short order.
10. M. Y. H./92/Lb/S