RAJA BASHIR AHMAD KHAN (CHAIRMAN): --This appeal arises out of order dated 22-8-1992 passed by District Health Officer, Poonch whereby the service of appellant was terminated.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that appellant was appointed as Watchman in Civil Dispensary dated 8-10-1990. Appellant in persuance of above order joined his service on 15-10-1910. The service of appellant was terminated by respondent No. 2 on 22-8-1992. The, appeal against the Order No. 3503/2/DHO/92, dated 8-10-1992 was dismissed by Director, Health Services on 7-1-1993.
3. The respondents have controverted the facts of appeal through their written objections.
Appellant has filed the replication wherein he has reiterated the facts contained in memorandum of appeal.
4. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
5. The counsel of appellant has submitted that the appointment of appellant was confirmed by the provisions of section 3 of Civil Servants (Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointment) Act, 1992 and the termination of service of appellant is against the provisions of the said Act. The orders, therefore; are liable to be vacated.
6. The appellant was appointed against the vacant post of Watchman and the appointment was on probation for the period of two years and was liable to be terminated without any notice if the conduct of the appointee was not good. The provision of said Act could only cover the case of a civil servant who was appointed on ad hoc basis. The appointment of appellant was permanent and against the vacant post subject to successful completion of service for a period of two years.
The argument of counsel for appellant is devoid of any force and is, therefore, repelled.
7.The appellant in para. 6 `c' of his appeal has stated as under: -- "6(c) That it is incorporated in the impugned order by the respondent No. 2 that the services of the appellant and others were terminated vide Government Notification bearing No. 4077-96/SG/92, dated 27th July, 1992 but it is strange enough that no termination took place vide above Notification as stated by the respondent No. 2 thus order is illegal. Attested copy of above Notification is attached herewith as Annexure `E'."
The learned counsel for the appellant on the strength of the averments in memorandum of appeal has argued that no termination of service of appellant has taken place vide Notification dated 27- 7-1992 and, therefore, the order is illegal. In order to appreciate this point the background of this Notification is to be considered. The Government in pursuance of the decision of the Cabinet dated 11-7-1990 terminated the services of those persons who were appointed/promoted between the period 4-4-1990 to 29-6-1990. The Government by another Notification No. SH/3812-31/90, dated 7- 10-1990 restored the posts and appointments of all persons excepting those posts and appointments which were detailed in the attached list to the said Notification. This list contained the names of following ten Watchmen: --
(1) Amjad Hussain
(2) Muhammad Azam
(3) Azhar Hussain
(4) Muhammad Habib
(5) Muhammad Ishfaq
(6) Muhammad Jahangir
(7) Khalid Muzaffar
(8) Shaukat
(9) Iftikhar Hussain
(10) Muhammad Shabbir.
The appellant and certain other persons were appointed against the vacancies so caused under the abovementioned Notification through Order No.3503/2/DHO/90, dated 8-10-1990. It was clearly stated in the said order that the appointments were being made against the vacant posts of those persons who were discharged under the Government Order No.3503/2/DHO/90, dated 8-10-1990.
The Government yet by another subsequent Notification No. Seen suat/4077-96/92, dated 27-7- 1992 restored the services of all those persons from the date of termination of their service who were retired under Notification No. SH/3812-31/90, dated 7-10-1990. The consequence of all this exercise was that the persons whose services were dispensed with by Notification dated 7-10-1990 were reinstated under Notification dated 27-7-1992 and the persons who were appointed against the vacancies of those persons had to be discharged from the service. The DHO, Poonch under Order No. 3503/2/DHO/92, dated 22-8-1992 in fact dispensed with the service of the appellant and other six persons with effect from 31-8-1992 in the light of the Notification dated 27-7-1992. The appeal against this order was rejected and appellant was informed that he has been discharged from the service in the light of Government Notification No. Seen suat/4077-96/92, dated 27-7-1992 and therefore, no further action could be taken on his appeal. It is clear from the record that the appointment of appellant was made against a vacancy which became available under a general Notification of the Government and on the reinstatement of the persons from the date of their termination the services of appellant were dispensed with because there was no post available for retaining the appellant into service. The appointment of appellant was on probation for two years which could be terminated by the Appointing Authority without assigning any reason. The Appointing Authority in view of the decision of Supreme Court of AJ&K in Civil Appeal No. 18/Mzd of 1990 Syed Zahoor Hussain Kazmi v. Mansoor Hussain and others could terminate the services of a probationer without any show-cause notice. In the instant case the appointment was made against avacant post and on the reinstatement of the original holder of that post the Appointing Authority was fully competent to order the discharge of appellant from the service. The. DHO.
Poonch has erroneously used the word `Dismissal' in the order but this lapse on the part of the said Officer does not affect the natural consequence of the termination of the appellant since the post against which he was appointed was no more available for his retention in his service. We find no substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and reject the same.
8. In the light of above discussion, we are of the view that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed and we order accordingly leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.