' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 26-5-1991.
2. The petitioner was appointed Junior Clerk on the recommendation of the Divisional Selection Board by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation). Subsequently, he was confirmed in the post by the Commissioner and shown in the seniority list of employees of the Commissioner's Office. An objection was taken that he being an empolyee of the Consolidation Wing could not be either confirmed by the Commissioner or shown in the list of the employees of the Commissioner's office. After show-cause notice, the confirmation order was recalled by the Commissioner. The petitioner appealed to the Service Tribunal against recall of such an order but the appeal was dismissed. The Service Tribunal observed with regard to the merits of the claim of the petitioner as hereunder:-- "The officials of Consolidation Wing whenever they are required to work in the office of the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, they still remain employees of the Consolidation Wing and they cannot be treated as permanent employees of the Commissioner's Office. The appellant's appointment in the office of Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) Sargodha Division was purely for the establishment of that office which cannot be merged in the establishment of Commissioner, Sargodha Division which is of a permanent, nature. It is also added that the appointment authority in case of employees of Commissioner's office is separate whereas the competent appointing authority in case of appointment of Staff of Consolidation Office is separate.
Respondent No,2 after considering the merits of the case as well as hearing the appellant correctly passed the order dated 27-9-1987 in accordance with law."
3. We find the decision of the Tribunal proceeds on two findings of fact, both of which are unexceptionable. Firstly, that the petitioner was an employee of the Consolidation Staff and not of the Commissioner's staff. Secondly, the Commissioner could not confirm the Consolidation staff in his office though temporarily such Consolidation staff could work in his office. On these findings, the recall of the confirmation order and the omission of the petitioner's name from the seniority list of the staff of the Commissioner's office would appear to be justified.
4. No question of law of public importance arises and leave to appeal is refused.