' MAMOON KAZI, J---This appeal, by leave of this Court, arises out of the judgment of N.-W.F.P.
Service Tribunal dated 23-12-1992, dismissing appellant's appeal.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined service as a Patwari on 18-2-1961. On 26- 10-1971 he was selected as Qanungo and his appointment as such was regularized on 7-8-1976. On 5-4-1978 the appellant was promoted as Naib Tehsildar on ad hoc basis. The appellant was aggrieved because although he had been continuously serving in that position but he was not considered for regular appointment when in the meanwhile many junior persons were promoted.
The appellant preferred a departmental appeal in 1991 but the same was dismissed. In the meanwhile North-West Frontier Province Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularization of Services) Act, 1987 came into force and thereafter the appellant moved the department contending that by virtue of section 3 the appellant had become entitled to regularization of his service as he was holding an ad hoc appointment. However the appellant's case was not considered favourably by respondents Nos.1 and 2. The appellant, feeling aggrieved, filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal but the same was dismissed vide order dated 23-12-1992 as it was held that the appellant was not an ad hoc appointee against the post of Naib-Tehsildar but he had been promoted on temporary basis by way of stop-gap arrangement and hence his service could not be regularized.
3. Leave was granted to the appellant to consider the affect of an earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Muhammad Nihar (CA. No, 209-P of 1991), Muhammad Nihar v. The Commissioner, Peshawar Division). In this case the appeal filed by Muhammad Nihar was allowed and the case was remanded to the Tribunal to decide the same in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.
4. The said Act (Act II of 198.7) came into force on the 19th March, 1987 and it provided for regularization of service of certain civil servants appointed on ad hoc basis. Section 3 thereof provided as follows:- ' "Regularization of Services of certain civil servants.-- ' Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or rule, or in any decree, order or judgment of a Court, all civil servants holding ad hoc appointment to a post on or before 20th September, 1986, and continuing as such till the commencement of this Act, shall be deemed to have been validly selected and appointed to the posts held by them on regular basis with effect from the date of commencement of this Act: ' Provided that--- ' the services of such civil servants shall be deemed to have been regularized under this Act only on the publication of their names in the official Gazette;
(ii) such civil servants possess the qualification and experience prescribed for the posts; and
(iii) the Commission has in respect of the posts held by such civil servants not recommended any other person on or before the commencement of this Act."
' The expression "ad hoc appointment" is defined in section 2 (2) of the said Act to have the same meaning as assigned to it in the North-West Frontier Province Civil Servants Act, 1973. The said expression has been defined in Civil Servants Act as under:-- "(a) 'ad hoc appointment' means appointment of a duly qualified person made otherwise than in accordance with the prescribed method of recruitment, pending recruitment in accordance with such method."
' The question as regards the effect of the said definition upon the provisions of section 3 of N.- W.F.P. Act II of 1987 was examined by this Court in Khalilur Rehman, SDO, Irrigation v. Secretary Irrigation and Public Health, Peshawar (1994 PLC (C.S.) 972). It was held that the provisions of the said Act were not applicable to civil servants who had been promoted to officiate on ad hoc basis from the lower cadre. Observations made in this behalf appearing at page 638 of the report are reproduced as under:- "Reading the definition of ad hoc appointment as given in the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants Act, alongwith the provisions of the Act, it is quite clear that the Act was promulgated with the intention to regularize the services of only those persons who were appointed on ad hoc basis through initial recruitment. The provisions of the Act did not apply to the civil servants who were promoted to officiate on ad hoc basis from the lower cadre. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellants having been promoted from lower cadre to the posts of S.D.Os. Though on ad-hoc basis, were not covered by the provisions of the Act and as such they could not claim regularization of their services as S.D.Os. In terms of the provisions of the Act."
5. The appellant in the present case was also promoted on ad hoc basis to officiate as a Naib- Tehsildar, there being no controversy in this regard. As was held in the case of Khalilul Rehman the provisions of section 3 of Act II of 1987 were only applicable to persons who were appointed on ad hoc basis but the same did not extend to persons who were promoted to officiate as such. The appellant therefore, could not have claimed the benefit of the said provisions in any case. The case of Muhammad Nihar is distinguishable as the question qua applicability of the provisions of Act II of 1987 had not been examined in that case, while in the case of Khalilul Rehman (supra) this was the main question which came under focus. Therefore, interference with the judgment of the Service Tribunal in any case is not called for and this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6. In the result, the appeal s dismissed.