SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The two functionaries of the Government, seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal dated 23-7-1989 whereby the respondent was reinstated in service alongwith back benefits.
2. The letter of appointment of the respondent which issued under the signatures of petitioner No.1 on 2nd of February, 1988, reads as hereunder:-- "Mr. Farman Ali, son of Khanimullah, village Mohib Banda P.O. Mohib Banda, Tehsil and District Mardan is hereby offered the post of Sub-Inspector in this Department in BPS No.5 (Rs.700-25- 1,200) with usual allowances admissible under the rules, against the vacant post in Mardan District.
If he accepts the above offer he should report to the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mardan for further action."
3. Another order was issued by the same Officer on 13th October, 1988 which is as hereunder:- "As reported by Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mardan regarding your illegal absence from field Training since 31-5-1988, this office order issued under No.321-23/DRP, dt:2-2-1988 is hereby withdrawn and your candidature in the Department is also terminated."
4. The respondent challenged successfully this order before the Service Tribunal.
5. The learned Additional Advocate-General, in support of the Petition contended that under the.
West Pakistan Co-operative Department Subordinate Service (Men's Section) Rules, 1962, all persons recruited initially, have to remain on probation for a period of two years and it was during this period of probation that the appointment of the petitioner was terminated. Even if this fact be accepted that the respondent was on probation, the action taken cannot be defended in view of the decision of this Court in Muhammad Sidiq Javid Chaudhry v. The Government of West Pakistan (PLD 1974 SC 393). There appears to be another basic defect in the order that his services have been terminated taking him to be a candidate. The letter of appointment does not show that he was appointed as a candidate and the rules of service do not make a provision for a candidate.
There was, it appears a clear unawareness of the rules, applicable to the respondent. In either case the action has rightly been taken by the Service Tribunal to be unsupportable in law and no case for leave to appeal is made out. Hence, leave to appeal is refused.