1. ' FAZAL ILAHI KAHN, J.---Leave to appeal is prayed for by the Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary, Education Department, Peshawar and another against the judgment of learned Service Tribunal, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar, in Appeal No, 93 of 1993.
2. ' Facts of the case in brief are that respondent was appointed as a Junior Trade Instructor (Mechanical) in BPS-10 on 5-11-1985 on stopgap arrangement. Pay scale was revised and he was given BPS-11 on ad hoc basis and subsequently on 27-10-1986 he was allowed BPS-14 w,e,f. 1-9- 1986. The Government of N.-W.F.P. Was pleased to regularise the services of the respondent from 29-10-1987 by the Selection Committee. However, on 5-12-1992 respondent submitted departmental representation claiming his regularisation from 19-3-1987, the date from which he was holding ad hoc appointment, under section 3 of .The N.-W.F.P. Ad hoc Civil Servants (Regularisation of Services) Act, 1987 (Act No,2 of 1987). As the representation had not been responded the respondent filed a Writ Petition which was dismissed on 22-12-1992 whereafter he approached the learned Tribunal claiming a right to be considered for regularisation from the date of the commencement of the Act i,e. 19-3-1987. The learned Tribunal vide judgment dated 23-8- 1993, against which leave to appeal is sought for, accepted the respondent's appeal.
3. The learned Advocate-General appearing for the petitioner contended that section 3 applies to all civil servants holding ad hoc appointments to a post on or before 20th September, 1986. He further argued that "post" has been defined under section 2 (1) (d). A post under Government or in connection with the affairs of Government to be filled in on the recommendations of the Public Service Commission. Commission means North-West Frontier Province Commission. According to Rule 3 (a) alongwith the Schedule all the posts of BPS-16 and above are to be filled by the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. In the instant case the respondent having held the post in BPS-14, benefit of Rule 3 of the Act was therefore, not available to him. The above contention of the learned Advocate-General requires consideration. Leave is granted.