1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--In this appeal order, dated 18th September, 1979 of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore has been assailed whereby the Intra-Court Appeal of the appellant Muhammad Mukhtar Tikka from the order, dated 4th December, 1977 of learned Single Judge of the same Court was dismissed.
2. ' Briefly the facts were that vide order, dated 7th January, 1977 the Punjab Government appointed the appellant as Deputy Superintendent of Police on ad hoc basis till further orders in relaxation of Rules. On 8th August, 1977 the Martial Law Administrator respondent No,2 issued Martial Law Instruction No,21 with the object of regularising the ad hoc, appointments. Para 2 sub-para (c) of the said instruction reads as follows: "Cases of all other persons appointed directly or promoted on ad hoc basis at present in service will be reviewed immediately by the appropriate selection authority competent to make recommendation for regular appointments according to the rules. On such reviews those who are found ineligible and unsuitable, their services will be terminated. Those found eligible and suitable will be converted to regular basis."
3. ' In the light of the above provision of the said Instruction the case of the appellant alongwith others was referred to the Punjab Public Service Commission which interviewed the appellant on 29th September, 1977 and declared that he was suitable for the post against which he had been working on ad hoc basis. However, subsequently by an order, dated 28th November, 1977 the Governor declared him ineligible/unsuitable for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and terminated his services. The aforesaid order of the Provincial Government was challenged by way of a writ petition by the appellant which was dismissed by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court Lahore on the ground that as the appointment of the appellant was of ad hoc nature and was to last only till further orders, therefore, he was not entitled to claim relief under the Constitutional jurisdiction. The Intra-Court Appeal of the appellant was likewise unsuccessful.
4. ' Leave to appeal was granted in this case to the appellant in order to examine the question that when under para 2 sub-para (c) of Martial Law Instruction No,21 it was obligatory upon the Provincial Government to accept the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, then it was not open to the Provincial Government to terminate the services of the appellant after the Public Service Commission had found him suitable for the appointment against the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
5. ' Learned counsel for the appellant argued before us that in all 21 persons were appointed on ad hoc basis as such including the present appellant. All of them appeared before the Public Service Commission but 13 out of them'including the present appellant were held as eligible and suitable for the said appointments by the Public Service Commission. It was further submitted that since the appellant had been recommended by the Public Service Commission under pars 2'(c) of the aforesaid Instruction, it was not open to the Provincial Government to terminate his services. In support of this contention learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on 1976 SCMR 212 (Punjab Public Service Commission v. All Gul Khan) and PLD 1985 Lah.394 (Mazhar Hussain v.
6. Province of Punjab).
7. ' Mr. Khalil Ramday Advocate-General, Punjab appeared on behalf of the respondents. He submitted that he does net know as to why the appellant was held ineligible by the Provincial Government. Thus, he was unable to support or defend the impugned order, dated 28th November, 1977 of the Provincial Government.
8. ' In that view of the matter we set aside the order, dated 28th November, 1977 terminating the services of the appellant and allow the appeal with costs. So far as the maintenance of seniority and claim respecting back benefits of the appellant are concerned he may move the Provincial Government, if so advised.