' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This appeal is by the leave of the Court against the judgment, dated 3rd September, 1996 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore whereby appeal filed by respondent against the order of termination of his service, dated 1st September, 1993 has been accepted.
2. Facts relevant for disposal of instant appeal are that on 29th September, 1990 respondent was appointed as Agriculture Officer on ad hoc basis for a period of one year till the availability of the Punjab Public Service Commission. However, after expiry of stipulated period the tenure of service of respondent was extended from time to time but subsequently, on 21st September, 1993 his service alongwith other ad hoc appointees of the department was terminated. The respondent filed appeal against the order of termination of his service before the Punjab Service Tribunal on 14th May, 1994. The appeal was contested by the appellant on facts and law inter alia objecting its maintainability being barred by time as well as denying of filing departmental appeal by the respondent. It was categorically contended that the copy of the departmental appeal attached by the appellant with the present appeal is bogus as no receipt or acknowledgment from the department has been attached by the respondent to prove the veracity of his version.
3. Learned Service Tribunal after hearing the parties allowed the appeal on 3rd September, 1996.
Against this order petition for leave to appeal was filed. Leave was granted. The operative para. Is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent had no vested right to continue in service as an ad hoc appointee, inasmuch as, the procedure prescribed for recruitment of such appointments under the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service)
Rules, 1974, was not observed. It is further argued that, in view of the observations made by this Court in Munawar Khan v. Niaz Muhammad 1993 SCM R 1287, the Tribunal was wrong in reinstating the respondent in service and that in any case, termination of ad hoc appointment of the respondent was not violative of the provisions contained in section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974."
4. Learned counsel contended that the appeal filed by the respondent was hopelessly barred by time. In addition to it respondent had no right to continue in service as ad hoc appointee till the regular appointment against the post is made by the Punjab Service Commission because according to him section 10 of Punjab Civil Servants. Act confers no right upon the ad hoc appointee to remain in service for indefinite period.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent contended that during pendency of the appeal the respondent has been appointed on regular basis as Agricultural Officer in BPS-17 on the recommendations of the Public Service Commission vide order, dated 30th October, 1995. However, he stated that the earlier termination order, dated 21st September, 1993 was in violation of section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act because till the selection of a candidate on regular basis by the Public Service Commission the department had no authority to terminate his service.
6. We have heard both the learned counsel for parties and have also considered section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act which is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "10. Termination of service.--(1) The service of a civil servant may be terminated without notice:--
(i) during the initial or extended period of his probation: ' Provided that, where such civil servant is appointed by promotion on probation or, as the case may be, is transferred and promoted on probation from one grade, cadre or post to another grade, cadre or post his service shall not be terminated so long as he holds a lien against his former post, grade, or cadre, and he shall be reverted to his former grade, or as the case may be, cadre or post;
(ii) if the appointment is made on ad hoc basis liable to termination on the appointment of a person on the recommendation of die selection authority, on the appointment of such person.
(2) In the event of a post being abolished or number of posts in a cadre or grade being reduced the services of the most junior person in such cadre or grade shall be terminated.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) but subject to the provisions of subsection (2), the service of a civil servant in temporary employment or appointed on ad hoc basis shall be liable to termination on thirty days' notice or pay in lieu thereof."
7. A perusal of section 10(1)(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act indicates that the-appointment made on ad hoc basis is liable to be terminated on the appointment of a person on the recommendations of the Selection Authority. However, if this provision is read alongwith subsection
(3) we feel no difficulty to conclude that the services of the ad hoc appointee can be terminated even before the appointment of a person on regular basis against the recommendations of the Selection Authority, however, subject to notice of 30 days or pay in lieu thereof. It may be noted that as far as ad hoc appointee is concerned he enjoys no vested right in the service till the time no selection on regular basis on the post against which he is working is made by the Selection Authority. Because an ad hoc appointee at the time of induction in service accepts the condition that his services can be terminated at any moment even before the expiry of the period for which an appointment has been made. In the instant case the respondent was appointed on 29th September, 1990 subject to the following conditions:-- "(i) The appointment is on ad hoc basis for a period of one year from the date of joining and shall automatically be terminated on the expiry of the said one year or till the selectee of the Punjab Public Service Commission becomes available whichever is earlier.
(ii) You have to join duty at your own expense at the place of posting.
(iii) In case you wish to resign at any time one month's notice will be necessary or in lieu thereof one month's pay will be forfeited.
(iv) Your services are liable to be terminated by Government at any time (without notice) and without assigning any reasons.
(v) You will be governed by the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service)
Rules, 1974 and as such other rules and orders relating to leave T.A. Medical Attendance, Pay etc. In respect of the category of civil servants to which you belong.
(vi) The above ad hoc appointment shall not confer any right upon you to claim seniority etc."
8. After having accepted the above conditions including that on the expiry of period of one year his service was liable to be terminated automatically, thus no plea can be taken by him that he is entitled to remain in service till regular selection of a candidate against this post. It may be noted that s lough the tenure of service of the respondent was extended but by issuing a fresh appointment letter containing the same conditions including that his service is liable to be terminated at any time without notice and without assigning any reason. Therefore, in view of such situation respondent had no case at all to remain in service till the time selection of a candidate is not made against the post by the Selection Authority. This Court in the case of Muhammad Azam Ali and 35 others v. Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary and another 1985 SCM R 1408 has held as under:-- "5. The rules prescribed for recruitment provided not only qualifying marks in individual subjects but also in the aggregate. By not obtaining qualifying marks in the aggregate the petitioners failed to obtain entry according to the prescribed method. The prescribed rule was neither relaxed nor changed, either expressly or by implication. Instead their appointment was taken and expressed to be otherwise than in accordance with the prescribed rule i.e, ad hoc, on terms reproduced. The termination of their service was in accordance with the law applicable to ad hoc appointments and in accordance with terms and conditions on which they were appointed. They can take as many chances as they like, subject of course to their eligibility, but their insistence that their ad hoc appointment should be continued meanwhile is untenable. We find no merit in this petition and leave to appeal is refused."
' Similarly in another case with regard to acceptance of terms and conditions at the time of induction in service in the case of Government of the Punjab v. Ghulam Rasool Zahid 1985 SCM R 1614 it has been held as under:-- "4. In response to notice sent by this Court, Mr. M.M. Saeed Beg has appeared for the respondent. On examination of the record with the help of counsel present, we find that the initial order of appointment dated 26-11-1976 clearly stated that the appointment was 'on ad hoc basis'. The subsequent order dated 28-8-1977, which was in partial modification of the said order, clarified that the appointment of the respondent was to be treated as temporary against a leave vacancy till the same exists.' The termination order also gives the same reason for termination, that is, the temporary appointment was against a leave vacancy. The respondent had accepted the offer made in the first order and had acquiesced in the second order, copy of which had been duly endorsed to him. There is no material to support his stand that his appointment had been against a substantive vacancy or on probation. The Tribunal has apparently not given due consideration to the terms of his appointment and has fallen into error in arriving at the conclusion that he had been 'regularly appointed' and 'after serving in 2 years probation period, stood automatically confirmed in the said service' ."
9. Although leave has not been granted on the question whether the appeal before the Tribunal was barred by time or not but during arguments learned Additional Advocate-General pointed out that the appeal before the Service Tribunal was filed much beyond the period of limitation.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent did not controvert to his this stand, therefore, even if the case is examined from this angle no option is left except to hold that the appeal was barred by time as such the same was not maintainable.
11. Before parting with the judgment we would like to observe that as now the respondent has been appointed on regular basis as Agriculture Officer with effect from 3rd October, 1995, therefore, he will be free to avail departmental remedy if any to seek the benefit of the period during which he was holding ad hoc appointment and the department shall consider his request without being influenced in any manner from the observations made hereinabove.
Thus, for the foregoing reasons the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 3-9-1996 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal is set aside. No order as to costs.