1. MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-After publication of seniority list of the Central Information Service of Pakistan dated 22nd May, 1975, appellant Syed Hasanat Ahmed, filed this appeal against Secretary, Ministry of Information on 21st June, 1975. On preliminary hearing it was found that question agitated being of seniority, which will adversely affect others of the Cadre their joiner was necessary. Amended appeal was submitted on- 19th July, 1975 which has as many as 19 respondents including Secretary, M/01 Information.
2. Information Service of Pakistan was constituted vide resolution of 24th January, 1964. It was to be known as Central Information Service, which consist of journalistic and writing posts in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting etc. The list was published and character of posts essentially borne on the cadre of service and their present Grade a and Scales of Pay were shown in the annexure.
3. According to this resolution there were three Grades in the cadre, Grade-1, II and Grads Ill. The service then did not bear classification of Class one or two etc. However, Scales of Pay were prescribed, Grade I received 1,400 rupees, Grade 11 Rs. 1,050-50-1,250 and Grade III, Rs. 500-35--EB- 5Q-1950.
4. In pursuance of this resolution, service rules were published on 9th March, 1967. They were to govern recruitment to the Central Information Service Class I. Preliminary point to be borne in mind is that Rules only concerned Class I Service. Relevant rule diverging from the above generality concerns Assistant News Editors and equivalent posts is Rules 9 of Part III. It lays down that official of such and other denominations mentioned therein shall be considered for promotion after they have put is 5 years' service in these posts. Rule 10 which follows stresses that promotion against depart--mental quota will be made first and posts reserved for direct recruitment filled later on, but another directive that no Officer shall have any claim to promo--tion as of right and if no suitable candidate is available for promotion vacancy or vacancies shall be filled by direct appointment nullifies the import. These are the three Rules, which require interpretation in the present case.
5. Appellant Mr. Hasanat Ahmed was Assistant News Editor wherefrom he was promoted as News Editor on July 21, 1965 with effect from 31st June 1965. The job was to continue up to November 1965 or until further order.
6. It was an ad hoc appointment purely temporary in nature as is clearly indicated by endorsement to D.P.R. running as under: "lt should be made clear to Mr. Hasanat Ahmed in writing that this is purely ad hoc appointment made in the exigencies of Service and will not confer on him any right or claim to be absorbed or for seniority in the C.I.S."
7. Under similar arrangements he remained in service till 1972 when he, was finally inducted into Central Information Service. Two points clearly emerge reflecting on merits of the case, one is limitation anti the other is implication of Rule 11 which has been cited earlier and may be given in extensor as under: "No Officer shall have any claim to promotion as of right. If no suitable officer is available for promotion, vacancy or vacancies with Part IV be filled by direct appointment."
8. It is admitted that appellant was Class II Officer on ad hoc basis and ha no right whatsoever to claim right of absorption of seniority. Ad hoc appointment is define by Civil Servants Act in its clause 2 (1) (a). It means appoint-I went of a duly qualified person made otherwise than in accordance with the prescribed method of recruitment pending recruitment in accordance with such method. Thus the appellant has no claim whatsoever till he is regularly appointed to claim induction into service. Moreover, the question so put clearly is bit by the mischief of Section 4(1) (b) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 which debars right of appeal to the Tribunal against an order or decision of departmental authority determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed to or hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher grade.
9. As per rule 9(d) of the Central Information Service Recruitment Rules of 1967 the appellant has to put in five years service as Assistant News Editor before he could be considered for appointment. If he had completed his service earlier he shall have approached the authority soon after for absorption His failure to do so and want of any document to contrary it is presumed that he may have completed his temporary service in 1972 when was inducted into service. Any person regularly appointed to the job will be as per Section 8 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 senior to him. The seniority list conforming to the conditions, no grievance can be made out of the published seniority.
10. Beside, the appeal is time barred. The list was published on 22nd of May, 1975. One month's period expired on. 21st Jane1975. Rest of the officials who joined thereafter claim against them will be hit by section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1 973. The only respondent then was Secretary, Ministry of Information who was not affected by the seniority. Appeal, therefore, with respect to respondents subsequently joined will be time barred. Besides the appellant being an Ad hoc appointee cannot have any claim to seniority. The appeal is dismissed with costs, which are calculated at Rs. 50. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.