' The appeal captioned above emerges from the decision dated 20-4-1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 7, Gujranwala treating the respondent as permanent I.B.L.R.
2. The respondent was appointed as temporary Wireless Licence Inspector on ad hoc basis on 24- 11-1976 vide order Exh. P-4. He was asked to appear in the competition by order dated 26-6-1984, copy of which is Exh. P.S. The respondent challenged the said order in his grievance petition. His first claim is that he is not required to participate in the competition and the second is that he be declared as permanent Wireless Licence Inspector. During the pendency of the case he participated in the competition held in 1984, therefore, his first prayer has become infructuous. On the basis of the competition held in 1984, the respondent was made regular in 1985 but his claim is that he should be treated as regular and confirmed with effect frbm the date he completed the probationary period.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent was appointed as Wireless Licence Inspector against a permanent vacancy, therefore, the right from the date of appointment became permanent. This argument is not based upon any evidence.
Rather para. 9 of appointment order Exh. P-4 which deals with the appointment of the respondent disproves his claim. It is mentioned in para. 9 that the respondent was appointed temporarily on ad hoc basis as Wireless Licence Inspector. In sub-para. (3) of para. 9 it is mentioned that he will have no right for regular absorption in Grade-8 (WLI cadre) unless he passed the prescribed examination for the said cadre. He was further informed that he was likely to be reverted at any time to his substantive post without assigning any reason. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that whatever is mentioned in para. 9 is wrong. If it is so, then the respondent should have challenged this letter after the service of grievance notice in 1977 and now after the lapse of about eleven years, he cannot say that whatever is given in Exh. P.4 is wrong. Since the respondent accepted his promotion vide order copy of which is Exh. P-4, he cannot challenge the same. There is no evidence that he had already in 1976 cleared the competition examination. Since he admittedly cleared the test in 1984, he was rightly confirmed in order pf merit. The learned lower Court has been misled by Exh. P-3. The serial numbers are not in order of seniority or merit but merits are given in column No,
2. The heading of the said column is "Serial on the merit list".
' Against the name of the respondent serial of the merit is given as 25, which means that the respondent secured 25th position. The learned lower Court considered that since the respondent was mentioned at Serial No, 3 of Exh. P-3, his number was three in the merit list. The impugned decision thus is based upon misreading of evidence.
4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the grievance petition so far as it relates to the prayer that the respondent be treated as permanent from the date he was promoted as Wireless License Inspector is dismissed.