HC/Muhammad Ramzan is being promoted as A.S.I. On ad hoc basis keeping in view his good performance and spotless length of service. However, he will not claim for any seniority till his regular promotion."
5. We have heard the parties and perused the record of the case. Besides the order dated 15-6- 1991, whereby the appellant was appointed as A.S.I. On ad hoc basis, we find that the appellant was also put to the post of A.S.I. By order dated 23-6-1992, wherein it was stated that "A.S.I. Muhammad Ramzan will draw his pay at the rate of Rs.1,533 (BPS-11) with effect from 7-6-1992 and will not confer his right for regular promotion till he is recommended/cleared by the proper DPC." Both the orders clearly show that the appellant's appointment/promotion as A.S.I. Had never been made regularly and was made purely on ad hoc officiating basis but without any claim for regular absorption. Obviously such an appointment does not confer any right on the appellant to hold the post of A.S.I. Till he was regularly promoted which was never done. His reversion from ad hoc or officiating appointment to his regular post of Head Constable was, therefore, quite in order and cannot be challenged on any ground.
6. The other submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that no notice was served upon the appellant before reverting him to the post of Head Constable, is also of no avail to him as it is considered view of the superior Courts that "no notice is necessary when a civil servant is reverted to his lower post or grade if he was appointed to a higher post or grade on ad hoc or temporary or in an officiation capacity. In other words, ad hoc, temporary or officiating appointment, confers no right on an incumbent to the receipt of notice prior to being reverted to his former post. If any authority is needed we would quote 1976 SCM R 255 wherein it was inter alia observed that a civil servant, appointed to a higher post or grade on ad hoc or on temporary or on officiating basis, is liable to be reverted to his lower post or grade without notice.
7. The appellant also alleged mala fides against the A.I.-G. In the memo. Of appeal but at the time of hearing he could not establish the same. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case reported as 1985 SCM R 1649 (Nabi Ahmed v. Ministry of Defence) has laid down that the plea of mala fides has to be specifically alleged and proved conclusively. Since the appellant has failed to establish mala fides against the A.I.-G., therefore, his objection is repelled.
8. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this appeal which is ismissed with no order as to costs. We may, however, add that if the appellant falls in the range of promotion and otherwise is qualified, the department may consider him for promotion afresh as he had been serving as A.S.I.
Time and again.
9. Parties to be informed accordingly.