1. This is a case of appellant under section 4 of the Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act against the order of the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Communications and Works Department, dated 7-8-1972, whereby the appellant was reverted from the post of Assistant Director to that of Town Planning Assistant.
2. According to the facts provided by the appellant, he was initially appointed in the Town Planning Department as an Assistant Draftsman, and rising through the ranks of Junior Draftsman, Senior Draftsman, Chief Draftsman on various dates he was promoted to officiate as Town Planning Assistant on 1-3-1969 and was regularly appointed against this post on 1-8-1969. He was promoted as Assistant Director vide Notification of 13-1-1970 and took over as such with effect from 15-1-1970 in the office of Deputy Director Regional Development Plan, Peshawar Valley at Peshawar. On the break up of One Unit he was posted as Assistant Director at Gujranwala in the office of Deputy Director Outline Development Plan. The appellant was later reverted from the post of Assistant Director to the rank of Town Planning and Works Department vide Notification of the Communication and Works Department dated 7-8-1972. The appellant impugnes this reversion order on various grounds and prays that the respondent No, 1, may be restrained permanently from demoting the appellant from the rank of Assistant Director to that of Town Planning Assistant.
3. The operative part of the order of 13-1-1970 promoting the appellant as Assistant Director runs as follows:- "The Governor of West Pakistan on the advice of the Selection Board is pleased to promote M/s. Waheed-ud-Din, Assistant Town Planning, Directorate of Town Planning, Lahore Region, Lahore, and Zaheer-ud-Din, Chief Draftsman, Directorate of Town Planning, Peshawar Region, Peshawar, as Assistant Director of Town Planning in the Scale of 350-35525/40-925 with immediate effect on ad hoc basis."
4. It is to be observed that the above order clearly states that the promotion is of an ad hoc nature.
5. The arguments of the appellant centre round the plea that notwithstanding the fact that his promotion as Assistant Director has been described as ad hoc in the promotion order of 13-1-1970, his promotion in fact is a regular one and as such his reversion amounts to reduction in rank.
6. Various pleas advanced in support of this contention are: (1)The appellant was promoted as Assistant Director by the Governor of West Pakistan on the advice of Selection Board and such advice is obtained only when the promotions are intended to be made on regular basis.
7. (2)The promotion as Assistant Director was made against a regular vacancy for an indefinite period on the recommendations of Regional Directors.
8. (3)The promotion of the appellant was made against the quota reserved for employees already working in lower cadre and for such promotion no formal approval of Public Service Commission is called for under the Service Rules.
9. (4)An adverse entry in the Character Roll which has been communicated to the appellant cannot validly form basis of his reversion from higher rank to lower rank (it is Contended that the Public Service Commission did not approve of the promotion of the appellant on account of adverse entry earned by the appellant for the period 1-7-1970 to 31-12-1970 which was communicated to him vide letter of 26-8-1972, which in point of time was later than the issuance of the impugned order of his reversion dated 7-8-1972).
10. We have heard the learned counsel and carefully gone through the record produced before us. We are not convinced that there was anything in the process of promotion which could detract anything from, or alter the factum of the ad hoc nature of promotion of the appellant as Assistant Director. The process through which such promotion had taken place becomes irrelevant when the intention of the appointing authority of granting an ad hoc status to the promotion is manifestly clear from the promotion order itself. The appellant has failed to appreciate the significance of ad hoc nature of his appointment in the higher rank of Assistant Director, Promotion on ad hoc basis is purely a stopgap arrangement and cannot be equated to a regular, or substantive appointment or even an officiating appointment.
11. It has been held in a number of cases that the Government can at any time terminate an officiating appointment and revert the person holding such appointment as Assistant Director being on ad hoc basis was even more precarious and stood at a lower footing than an officiating appointment. In such a case reversion to substantive post does not operate as reduction in rank so as to be actionable in a Court.
12. On no discoverable principle can the appellant claim a lien or right to continue in a higher post to which he was never substantively appointed. The reversion from the post of an Assistant Director is, therefore, not questionable and we find no force in the appeal which is dismissed in limine.