' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---Director of Education (Schools) Lahore Region and District Education Officer (M), Kasur have filed this petition to seek leave to appeal against the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 23-4-1995 whereby service appeal of respondent Muhammad Abbas was allowed, his termination from services set aside and it was directed that he be re-instated in service with all back benefits admissible under the rules.
2. Facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that Muhammad Abbas respondent was appointed as an Elementary School Teacher on 2-2-1993 on his having been selected by the District Education Recruitment Committee, Kasur. His services were, however, terminated vide notice dated 3-7-1993 saying that "You, being a temporary hand, are served with one month notice for termination of your services which shall take immediate effect. After the expiry of notice period your services shall stand terminated automatically being no longer required".
3. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent after making a representation to the Director of Education, Lahore Division which was not respondent to, preferred an appeal before the Service Tribunal contending that the reason given in the notice of termination was not sustainable in law as there was no concept of temporary appointment in the rules; that his appointment was made in the prescribed manner on the recommendation of the relevant Recruitment Committee and that he fulfilled all the qualifications prescribed in the Recruitment Rules. It appears that the Departmental Authorities sought to justify the impugned termination of the respondent by contending that the appointment of respondent was not made on merits but was the result of recommendations of an M.P.A.; that the order of termination was passed in pursuance of a judgment delivered by the Lahore High Court directing that the appointments be made on merit and that the respondent did not come within the selection range in accordance with the merit. The learned Tribunal found no merit in any of these contentions and accepted the appeal of the respondent and ordered his re- instatement in service.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has reiterated the submissions made before the Service Tribunal and contended that the appointment of the respondent was not made on merits and his services were terminated in pursuance of a judgment of Lahore High Court wherein it was directed that the appointments be made on merits. We find no substance in this contention as no such reason was assigned in the termination notice and even otherwise the respondent was admittedly not a party to the writ petition in which the said judgment was passed though there can be no cavil with the proposition that the appointments have to be made on merits. Petitioners have not placed any thing on the record to show that the appointment of the respondent was not made on merits. On the other hand, it is borne out from the letter of appointment (copy at page 20 of the Paper Book) that the respondent was appointed after selection by the District Education Recruitment Committee. Issuance of this letter has not been denied by the petitioners. The allegation of the petitioners that the appointment of the respondent was made on the recommendation of an M.P.A. Has also not been substantiated. It appears that the respondent was appointed as a School Teacher on regular basis as the appointment letter does not indicate that his appointment was subjected to probation clause. That being so, the department was not left with any power to terminate the services of the respondent except in accordance with law.
5. Learned counsel relying upon clause (3) of the appointment letter vehemently argued that the appointment of the respondent was purely temporary and his services were liable to be terminated on one month's notice or without notice and without assigning any reason. This argument, as rightly noted by the learned Service Tribunal, was not sustainable in law as the rules did not envisage the concept of appointment being purely temporary. In an almost identical case, it has been held by this Court that there is no concept of "Purely temporary basis" in the entire gamut of the service rules and, therefore, no such stipulation could have been made in the letter of appointment. Refer judgment dated 6-12-1995 (unreported) passed in Civil Petition No, 137-1 of 1994, photo copy whereof has been produced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. As noticed above, it was a regular appointment within the meaning of section 2(2) of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 since it was made in accordance with the prescribed manner. For this reason also, the services of the respondent were not reliable to summary termination.
6. Upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal rendered by majority is not open to any exception. Leave sought is, therefore, refused and the petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.