' ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---Having been selected by the Federal Public Service Commission, the appellant Mr. Abdul Muttalib was appointed as Communications Security Officer (BPS-17) in the Department of Communications "Security, with effect from 21-7-1986 vide Notification dated 5th August, 1986. Subsequently, he was sent abroad for training and a surety bond was taken from him before he proceeded which he executed that on return from training abroad, he will have to serve the department for ten years. This position has not been 'denied by the appellant. However, the case of the appellant is that in pursuance to advertisement issued in "The Pakistan Times", dated 16-2-1994, he applied for a post in Grade-18 in the Intelligence Bureau but his application was withheld vide Memorandum dated 28-2-1994 on the ground that according to the surety bond the appellant is required to serve the department for ten years and being a specialised and sensitive nature of his job, the department cannot afford brain drain of experienced officers. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was a temporary employee and under the Rules contained at page 210 of ESTACODE, 1983 Edition, known as Government Servants (Applications of Services and Posts) Rules, 1966, the department was bound to forward his application and he was in hurry and executed such bond which has no value in the eye of law.
2. The appellant was appointed with effect from 21-7-1986 as Communications Security Officer (BPS-17) in the Department of Communications Security, in pursuance to advertisement by FPSC after due process and selection, vide Notification dated 5th August, 1986 and was placed on probation for a period of one year from the said date viz. 21-7-1986. His probation was extendable by an order either before or after its termination for a further period not exceeding one year, provided that, if no order has been issued by the day following the termination of either of the aforementioned probationary period, the appointment shall be deemed to be held until further orders, and the department vide their letter dated 18th September, 1994 while rejecting his representation clearly stated that he is not a temporary Government servant according to Rule 2(b) of SI. 21 of Chapter III of ESTACODE. Therefore, the rules relied by the learned counsel are not attracted to his case and are only applicable to temporary employees as appellant has never been appointed as temporary and he cannot continue as temporary for number of years and could not have been deputed abroad. After all the Government had incurred huge amount on his training and he executed bond to serve the department on return and these bonds are taken to ensure their return and the organisation being a sensitive.. Department, the competent authority was justified in the fitness of things not to have forwarded his application, because according to the surety bond the appellant had executed, he was bound to serve the department for ten years.
There has been no violation of any rule. Moreover, the last date of application has already expired.
This appeal is without merit and is dismissed in limine.