1. ' ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---The relevant facts for the disposal of this service appeal are that the appellant, Mr. Shahid Jan Khattak was working as Ward Master (B-6) in the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as PIMS). In pursuance to the advertisement issued in "The Pakistan Times" and "Daily Jang", dated 3-2-1992, he applied for the post of Supervisor House-Keeping (B-14) and was selected as such, and appointment order was issued by the Director, Children Hospital on 23-6-1993 and he accordingly joined the post on 24-6-1993. While he was on probation, his appointment was reviewed, under the instructions issued by the Health Division vide letter dated 29-3-1994, as he did not possess the requisite qualification at the time of appointment for the post of Supervisor House-Keeping. He was given a show-cause notice on 26th May, 1994 to which he replied and finally the competent authority reverted him to his original post of Ward Master (B-6) and such order was issued on 13th June, 1994. The appellant filed departmental appeal on 12th July, 1994 which was not responded, and after the expiry of waiting period of 90 days, the appellant preferred this appeal before the Tribunal oil 23-10-1994.
2. Mr.Zaheer Ahmed Qadri, the learned counsel for the appellant argued the appeal and submitted that the appellant was appointed by way of proper procedure and continued as such in B-14 as Supervisor for about a year and his reversion order is bad in law on the principle of locus poenitentiae. It is argued that the appellant was interviewed by a duly constituted DPC and was appointed in regular manner and, therefore, a valid order could not be recalled. He has relied on 1981 SCM R 523. It is further argued that the case of the appellant was examined by Hon'ble Wafaqi Mohtasib where the department filed comments and took the stand that the appointment of the appellant was regular and according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the reversion order could not be passed in these circumstances.
3. The comments have been filed by the department and we have heard Mr. Mian Ishtiaq Hussain, the learned counsel for respondent No,3, PIMS. It is argued that the appellant was not qualified to be appointed as Supervisor House-Keeping (B-14) but due to the pressure of the then Minister for Health, the department was compelled to appoint him. He has placed on record a photostat copy of the orders of the then Health Minister. It is contended that the basic qualification for the post of Supervisor was B.A. And at the time of recruitment, the appellant was only F.A. Therefore, his appointment order not being proper, could be recalled and he relied on PLD 1992 SC 207. The learned counsel has frankly submitted that the respondent PIMS under compulsion issued the appointment order of the appellant. It is argued that before the Hon'ble Wafaqi Mohtasib all relevant facts were not placed.
4. We have perused the record and considered the submissions of the parties. According to the advertisement published in English as well as Urdu newspapers, the basic qualification for the post of Supervisor House-Keeping was BA. With experience as given in the advertisement. The appellant admittedly was FA. And was not qualified to be even called for the interview and considered for appointment. It has been clearly stated by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents that this qualification could not be relaxed and nor there is any order of relaxation. In the order of the Hon'ble Wafaqi Mohtasib, these points were not taken and moreover that is an independent organisation and the case of the appellant was not examined in light of the facts mentioned above. This Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction in service matters. The fact is that the appellant was reverted to his original post during the probationary period. Whatever the case may be, it is to be seen whether the appellant had a vested right to be appointed as Supervisor House- Keeping (B-14) according to the qualification and the conditions prescribed in the rules. The appellant has admitted that he was not qualified but he made an application to the Minister of Health that he should be appointed whereon the Minister had ordered that he should be appointed. The contents of the application and orders of the Minister are reproduced below: "The Hon'ble Minister for Health, Ministry of Health, Islamabad.
2. Sub: Appointment/promotion as a Supervisor House-Keeper. Sir, ' Respectfully it is submitted that I am working as a Wardmaster in PIMS since 18-3-1986. My entire service of Ward Master has been satisfactory and I am the most educated Ward Master in Children Hospital.
3. ' The post of Supervisor House-Keeper NPS-14 was advertised in the Press. I had applied for the said post and was called for interview. I appeared in the interview on 23-4-1992.
4. ' It is, therefore, requested that I may kindly be appointed/promoted against the abovesaid post.
5. ' Thanks. Yours obediently ' Dated:13-6-1993 (Sd.)
6. (Shahid Khattak) Ward Master (Paying. Ward) Children Hospital (PIMS) Islamabad.
7. ' Please appoint against vacancy.
8. (Sd.)
9. (Syed Tasneem Nawaz Gardezi) Minister for Health Government of Pakistan, Islamabad.
10. ' JEO ' As directed by H.M. Please do the needful.
11. (Sd.) J.E.0."
12. The representative of the respondent PIMS has placed on record a list of 18 Officials, whose appointments were made in disregard of the rules and their cases were reviewed which resulted their reversion. Therefore, the appellant cannot claim distinction and different yardstick cannot be applied in his case. He sought appointment as Supervisor, without having requisite qualification of B.A. As provided in the rules, and such appointment could not be termed as regular appointment, made otherwise than the prescribed rules. Therefore, we are of the view that the order whereunder he has been reverted to his original post does not suffer from any legal infirmity, because it is a settled law that an, illegal order is always open to revocation and can be recalled. In these circumstances, the appeal having no merit is dismissed.