MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE FAROOQI (CHAIRMAN).--The appellant has challenged the order of Government, dated 22-1-1983, whereby the seniority of Assistant Engineers Electricity was finalized and the appellant was placed at No. 4, showing his date of appointment as 30-1-1976. The main ground of the appellant is that he joined the service in pursuance of Government order, dated 27- 7-1975 and he was confirmed in service vide Government order No. Admn. /24408/25/78, dated 28- 9-1978. The confirmation order was partially amended vide order, dated 10-6-1982. The appellant contended that in view of the aforesaid orders, he should have been treated in the regular service, w.e.f. The date, he joined the service on the basis of ad hoc appointment, ordered vide No. Admn. /13869-73/75, dated 27-7-1975. According to him the entry of 30-1-1976 against his name in the impugned order, dated 22-1-1983 has adversely effected his right and the persons joining the service, after the appellant have been shown senior to him. During the appeal, the appellant gave up his claim for the seniority against Muhammad Ashraf Khan, respondent No. 2 and contested the case only against Iqbal Mohiuddin, whose seniority has been determined with reference to 19-11- 1975. It is not shown in the order, whether these dates are the joining dates or these are that of appointment.
2. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The counsel for the appellant reiterated the stand of the appellant that his service should have been treated to have been commenced w.e.f. 27-7-1975, when his appointment was made on ad hoc basis. To a question by the Court, the appellant replied that he had joined the service on 30-7-1975.
According to the written statement, the period of 6 months service was treated as ad hoc appointment which was not computed towards the service of the appellant, therefore, his seniority was determined w.e.f. 30-1-1976, after deduction of a period of 6 months which under the rules was to be treated as ad hoc. The counsel for the appellant argued that the order of confirmation does not show any date of confirmation, therefore, it should be presumed that the appointment of the appellant was confirmed from the date, he initially joined the service.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the service rendered on ad hoc basis could not be considered for the purpose of seniority, therefore, the impugned order was rightly passed.
The counsel for the respondents cited the following authorities:-- 1972 PLC (C S T) 95, 31, 1984 PLC 537 and 1971 PLC 72.
4. In our view, the only points material for the disposal of the case are whether the period of ad hoc appointment can be counted for towards seniority and whether the confirmation order passed on 28-9-1978 can be treated to have converted the ad hoc appointment into the regular appointment?
5. We examined the Azad Jammu & Kashmir (Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, ?977.
Rule 8, deals with the seniority. The contestant officers in this appeal were appointed by initial recruitment. The provision applicable to their case is reproduced below:--- "8.--The seniority inter se of persons appointed to post in the same grade in a Functional Unit shall be determined:--
(a) In the case of persons appointed by initial recruitment, in accordance with the order of merit, assigned by the selection authority.
Provided that persons, selected for appointment to the grade in an earlier selection shall rank senior to the persons selected in a later selection;"
Rule 23 empowers the Government to make ad hoc appointments, but after sub-rule 5, there is proviso, which reads as follows:-- "Provided further that ad hoc appointment shall not confer any right on the persons so appointed in the matter of regular appointment to the same post nor the service will count towards seniority in the grade."
6. In the Civil Servants Act, 1976, section 7 deals with the seniority. Subsections (1) and (2) of section 7 are reproduced below:--- "7. SENIORITY.
(1) Seniority on initial appointment to a service, cadre, grade, or post shall be determined in the prescribed manner.
(2) Seniority in the grade to which a civil servant promoted shall take effect from the date of regular appointment to a post in that grade:"
1984, PLC 537, it has been observed at page 544 as under:-- "There are numerous judgments of the learned Supreme Court as well as of the Federal Service Tribunal, wherein it has been held, unambiguously, that ad hoc service does not count toward seniority. The law on this issue is well-settled in the light of which, respondent No. 2 could not have been given the advantage of his ad hoc service from 29th April, 1975 to 19th April, 1978. We can, therefore, earnestly say that the Establishment Division have gone as wrong as it is possible to go within and without the limits of this simple rule of seniority which is now well---established and is beyond any doubt."
1971 PLC 72, it has been held at page 73 as under:-- "This presumes that promotion and confirmation is each -an automatic process, which follows dates of appointment, but-that is not so, since so many factors including seniority, satisfactory work, availability of a permanent post of comparative merit are relevant considerations in their totality, which have to be taken into consideration in confirmation as well as in promotion." th August, 1974 and 11th September, 1977 were disregarded through Public Service Commission Ordinance and all such appointments falling between the aforesaid two dates were to be referred to the Public Service Commission for determination of suitability. It was thus, for these reasons that the case of the appellant received, the consideration of the Commission second time, whereby the respondent Iqbal Mohiuddin was again approved. The sequence of names in the order of confirmation dated 28-9-1978 shows that the respondent's name preceded the name of the appellant. Hence, in absence of any evidence to the contrary, it cannot be held that appellant was in any way senior to the respondent. Therefore, it appears that the seniority has been rightly determined by the competent authority. The case of Rafiq Akhtar Chaudhry v Azad Government PLD 1982 A J K (SC) 124 referred by counsel for the appellant is not applicable to this case. The Supreme Court has held in the aforesaid judgment that after the lapse of 6 months, a person even though initially appointed on ad hoc basis acquires a right of being heard before any action is taken against him and it is nowhere held in the judgment of the honourable Court that the period of ad hoc appointment would count towards the seniority. The learned counsel for the appellant laid much stress on the words "at least for the purpose of taking action against him" and persuaded us to hold that a person so appointed gets much more than rights of which the show- cause notice is the least. We cannot contribute to this view because it is against the spirit of the judgment. The view taken by the learned Judges only gives a right of being heard before any action intended to be taken against an individual and confers no other right not to speak of the right for seniority which is expressly disallowed by the statute.
6. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal which is dismissed with no order as to the costs.
A.A. /40-S/Pb/S