ABDUL OADEER CHAUDHRY, J.-- This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment dated 3-11-1987 of the Service Tribunal.
2. The facts of the case as noted in the Leave Granting Order are as under:-- The appellants were inducted in service as Trained Graduate Teachers in 1976-77, on ad hoc basis.
The appointment was made ad hoc because there was a ban on regular appointment. In 1980, their appointments were regularised. In 1983, by an office order, the regularisation was given retrospective effect linking it with the original date of induction on ad hoc' basis. This adversely affected the seniority of respondent No. 3. He after the normal channel of representation, filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal which was accepted by it.
3.Learned counsel has analysed the impugned judgment as follows:-- (i)There arc strong observations showing as if the regularisation itself in 1980 was illegal; (ii)that retrospective effect could not at all have been given to the regularisation;.
(iii)that there were no vacancies available in 1976-77 or thereafter till 1983 permitting retrospective effect to the regularisation; (iv)and/or that competent authority had not approved the regularisation whether with retrospective or prospective effect.
4. Learned counsel has brought under challenge each one of the aforenoted aspects of the impugned judgment. He submitted that the appellants have been seriously prejudiced on the question of their seniority vis-a-vis all others who were appointed as Trained Graduate Teachers from 1976 to 1983. He has also seriously contested the observations of the Service Tribunal.
5. Leave to appeal was granted against respondents Nos.l and 2 only toconsider inter alia "whether there is any prohibition in law in regularising ad hoc appointees with effect from their original date of induction subject, of course, to the existence of the vacancies and also satisfaction of other service conditions regarding merits etc. If not, whether, it would not be a case of general public importance to follow a uniform policy in such like cases leaving the discretion to the minimum so as to avoid clear injustice, favouritism or arbitrary decisions".
6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants were appointed against regular vacancies but there was a ban on the appointments, therefore, they were appointed on ad hoc basis. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, disputed this fact. The Service Tribunal has held as follows:- "The so-called regularisation could not be given a retrospective effect inter alia for the reason that no clear vacancies existed on the respective dates against which the respondents Nos. 3 to 14 could be appointed on regular basis."
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants were appointed against existing vacancies. As a factual controversy has been raised, we therefore decline to enter into the realm of facts. The Service Tribunal is the proper forum for resolving the factual and legal controversies arising in a. Service matter.
8. However, for the foregoing reasons, we accept this appeal and remand the case to the Service Tribunal to thoroughly examine and decide the issues framed by this Court. Reference may be made to M. Yamin Oureshi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (PLD 1980 SC 22), and Shafiuddin, Deputy Director v. Surat Khan Marri, D.R.I.O.(1991 SCM R 2216).
9.The parties are left to bear their own costs.