1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The petitioner is an employee of the Tele--phone & Telegraph Department of the Government of Pakistan. He joined service initially in a subordinate capacity but having served in successive subordinate capacities he was, in January 1968, appointed an Engineering Supervisor as a departmental candidate. The order appointing him clearly stated that he was being "appointed provisionally as officiating Engineering Supervisor (Phones) in the scale of Rs.240-250-15-355-20-395 in the Divisions and against the posts noted" against his name.
2. On the 16th of November 1970, however, the petitioner was reverted to his substantive rank. He made a representation against the said order of reversion as also went in appeal but without any success. Accordingly, he challenged the reversion by a writ petition in the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan on the 9th of August 1971.
3. The basis for the reversion was the seniority list prepared by the Depart--ment under the authority of the General Manager, Karachi Tele--communication Region. The petitioner contended that this list had been prepared in contravention of the recruitment rules, and, hence, was invalid.
4. It will be observed, therefore, that the main ground of attack against the order of reversion was the invalidity of seniority list. The High Court although inclined to take the view that the seniority list had not been prepared according to the rules ultimately came to the conclusion that since the petitioner held the post of Engineering Supervisor only in an officiating capacity, the Government had the legal authority to terminate such an officiating appointment at any time without even a show-cause notice. For this purpose, reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Muhammad Ibrahim v. The Government of Pakistan (PLD 1972 SC 332).
5. Unfortunately, the High Court did not notice that the writ petition itself was not maintainable under the provisions of Article 98 of the Con--stitution of 1962, for, under the provisions of the said Article the constitu--tional-guarantee given to a public servant could only be invoked in respect of terms and conditions of service guaranteed by the Constitution itself under clause (3) of Article 178 of that Constitution and the only terms and conditions of service guaranteed by the Constitution were remuneration" and age of retirement or superannuation. Seniority was not one of the con--ditions of service which had been guaranteed by that Constitution nor could a writ petition lie to enforce the correction of a seniority list which in effect v as what was desired in the present case by the petitioner, and, unless the seniority list was set aside, the order of reversion could not be interfered with.
6. The learned counsel appearing in support of this petition has, however, sought to contend that he was not seeking by the writ petition to enforce any condition of service but was merely challenging the validity of the order on the ground but it was contrary to the rules and this he could do as held by the High Court of West Pakistan in the case of M. S. Faruki v. Province of West Pakistan (PLD 1970 Lah. 195).
7. This contention is not tenable because this decision itself shows that a condition of service which has not been guaranteed by the Constitutional cannot be enforced by invoking the writ jurisdiction.
8. The learned counsel has also referred to a decision of this Court in the case of Muhammad Akhtar Hussain v. Government of West Pakistan (PLD 1970 SC 146). This decision also is of no assistance to the learned counsel because as already pointed out that the main purpose of the writ in the present case was to challenge the correctness of the seniority list and this could not be done under the Constitution of 1962 which specifically took away this right.
9. The petition in the High Court was, therefore, in our view, bound to fail on this ground alone although the High Court has disposed of it on merits.
10. Even on merits, the question is now well-settled by this Court that no public servant acquires a lien on an officiating post which would entitle him to challenge his reversion therefrom to his substantive position. This does not amount to a reduction in rank.
11. The petition in the High Court was, therefore, rightly dismissed and we see ground for interference.
12. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
13. Petition dismissed