CH. HASAN NAWAZ (MEMBER).--The appellant was appointed as Draftsman by respondent 1 on 1- 10-1983 by direct recruitment (Annexure-A). By order dated 17-10-1984, (Annexure-B) he was reverted to the "rank of Tracer" with immediate effect on the ground that he did not possess the qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment to the post of Draftsman. He was retained in the office of Director Incharge, CRBC, Design Cell, WAPDA, Lahore against an existing vacancy.
2. The appellant's representation dated 4-11-1984 (Annexure-D) against the order of his reversion having borne no fruit, he came to the Tribunal with the present appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 where the relief sought is that the impugned order of reversion dated 17- 10-1984 may be set aside and the respondents be directed to restore him to the post of Draftsman against which he had initially been appointed.
3. These are the grounds in support of the appeal:
(a) The appellants reversion as Tracer in NPS-5 from the post of Draftsman in NPS-11 by the same authority is void ab initio.
(b) A status having once been conferred upon a person by the competent authority and acted upon by the parties, vested certain rights in favour of the appointee and those rights could not subsequently be withdrawn even if the initial order of appointment was erroneous.
(c) Certain other persons of the names of Mubashar Ahmad, Muhammad Faheem, Talib Hussain and Sibtain Akhtar with the same qualifications as the appellant were appointed as Draftsmen on 9-3-1983, 8-5-1983 and 1-5-1983 respectively and they were still working in the same post. This being so the impugned order of reversion was arbitrary, discriminatory and bad in law.
4. The defence, in the main, is that the appellant was not in possession of the qualifications prescribed for initial recruitment to the post of Draftsman and he was, therefore, reverted as Tracer.
It is pleaded that after it was discovered that he was not eligible for the post, he was asked to produce the requisite certificates and that it was on his failure to produce, the same that he was reverted as Tracer, which post was accepted by him, as it appears from the option exercised by him on letter dated 17-10-1984 addressed by the Director Incharge, CRBC, Design Cell, WAPDA to Ghulam Hasan Shah, Assistant Director (Admn.) G.M.M.D. North.
5. In the background of these facts, the question which emerges for determination is as to whether the appellant was in possession of the prescribed qualifications and eligible for recruitment as Draftsman. Reliance on behalf of both the parties has been placed upon Circular dated 8-10-1964 issued by the Authority on the subject of recruitment/promotion Rules of Drawing Staff in the Water Wing. It bears out that acquisition of Diploma in Draftsmanship from Rasool or any other recognised Institute, was prescribed as minimum qualification and experience for initial recruitment as Draftsman. These Rules were admittedly in vogue at the time of Appellant's appointment on 1-10-1983.
6. As we see from the respondent's pleadings, his reversion as Tracer was ordered after he failed to produce any document to show that he had acquired the prescribed qualification and that he was eligible for recruitment as Draftsman in accordance with the prevalent rules. Two certificates have, however, now been placed on record to establish that he was in possession of the prescribed qualifications and that his recruitment did not offend against any such rule in force at the relevant time. The first of these is a proficiency certificate which purports to have been issued by Punjab Board of Technical Education, Lahore. It certifies that the appellant satisfactorily completed 300 hours programme of instructions in Tracer Trade during 1981 Session. The other document is also a proficiency certificate issued by the same Board which certifies that the appellant satisfactorily completed 300 Hours Programme of instructions in the Civil Draftsman Trade during 1983 Session and that he passed the Trade Proficiency examination conducted by the Board in the month of May, 1983.
7. The question which falls for determination is whether these proficiency certificates amount to a "Diploma in Draftsmanship" required under the rules as minimum qualification for the post of a Draftsman. We are afraid these certificates are not the same as a Diploma in Draftsmanship and they did not make the appellant eligible for recruitment to this post. Other circumstances apart, the strongest argument in support of this view becomes available from the appellant's pleadings which show that the order of reversion has been challenged on grounds other than the one that the appellant was in possession of the prescribed qualifications at the time of recruitment.
Nowhere in these pleadings has it been said even once that he either held the required Diploma or was in possession of any certificate which amounted to that kind of Diploma to make him eligible for recruitment. These grounds have already been mentioned earlier in the narration of facts and in our opinion the absence of pleadings to that effect constitutes positive proof of the fact that he was not in possession of any Diploma, as would have qualified him for recruitment as a Draftsman.
Had it been so, he would have clearly said that he either held the requisite Diploma or that the certificate in his possession amounted to that Diploma and that he had been rightly recruited as a Draftsman and that the order of his reversion was illegal on that ground.
8. A meticulous application to his pleadings would rather show that he avoided the real issue and relied upon grounds which had nothing to do with his qualifications. He pleaded that the status of Draftsman having once been conferred, he had a vested right in his favour and that it could not be withdrawn even if his recruitment was erroneous and against certain rules. This clearly betrays an admission of the fact that he was not in possession of minimum qualification for direct recruitment as a Draftsman and the respondent was justified in reverting him to the post of a Tracer.
9. This apart, office order dated 14-4-1975 shows that the Authority enhanced the pay scale of the post of Engineering Diploma holders and Technical Draftsmen where the prescribed qualification for direct entry was Matriculation with 3 years diploma course in any branch of Engineering from a recognised Institution. Subsequently, by office order dated 19-9-1975, it was decided that the aforementioned office order dated 14-4-1975 also applies to employees who possess two years civil certificate of the Government School of Engineering Rasool. Although these documents do not have direct bearing on the question, but they do show that the words "Diploma" used in Circular dated 8-10-1964 as minimum qualification was intended to convey a qualification which could be the result of two or three years Engineering course. This being so, there is no doubt about the fact that the proficiency certificates produced by the appellant did not show that he had passed any such course, particularly when there is nothing on the record to show that these 300 Hours programmes were in vogue in the Government College of Technology, Rasool in the year 1964 when the minimum qualification was prescribed.
10. It may be mentioned that on 17-10-1984 the Director, Incharge of CRBC, Design Cell, WAPDA addressed a letter to Ghulam Hasan Shah, Assistant Director (Admn.), where it was mentioned that the appellant's services were likely to be terminated on the ground that he was not in possession of the prescribed minimum qualification at the time of his recruitment as Draftsman. It was suggested that he may be retained in the capacity of a Tracer against the existing vacancy in the Assistant Director's office. The letter shows that the appellant agreed to work as a Tracer. Had he been in possession of the required minimum qualification, he would not have given this option, which amounts to reliable circumstantial evidence to show that he was not qualified to be directly recruited as a Draftsman, especially when he failed to produce any certificate in response to letter dated 16-9-1984 (Annexure-B), by which he was called upon to produce Matric Certificate and Diploma in Civil Draftsmanship.
11. For these reasons, we hold that respondents were justified in reverting the appellant as a Tracer with his agreement and there is nothing illegal about the impugned order. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed as being without any force. The parties to be informed.