IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHARY, J. -- I intend to dispose of the following writ petitions by one consolidated order since all of them involve similar facts and point of law:- W.P. 3122-2000 W.P. 19610-99 W.P. 8957-2000 W.P. 954-2000 W.P. 23133-2000 W.P. 3221-2000 W.P. 4235-2000 W.P. 3868-2000 W.P. 2878-2000 W.P. 4824-2000 W.P. 24467-99 W.P. 878-2000 W.P. 530-2000 W.P. 4822-2000 W.P. 4823-2000 W.P. 295-2000 W.P. 4205-2000 W.P. 1371-2000
2. Brief facts of the cases are that the petitioners were appointed as Sub-Engineers in the Irrigation Department on different dates and after joining the service they appeared in the Departmental professional examinations on different' dates and they passed the same and were awarded selection grade in BS-16 respectively. The names of the petitioners owing to this reasons were included among the Sub-Engineer (Mechanical) BS-16 in the seniority list for the candidates eligible for promotion to the rank of Asstt. Executive Engineers Sub-Divisional Officers BS-17. The petitioners claim that despite the fact that substantive vacancies were available at the time of passing of examination of Departmental promotion by the petitioners and that they were eligible for promotion they were not considered and were posted as SDO's on current charge basis.
According to the petitioners, two seniority lists of civil and mechanical engineers were prepared I and finalized in the Irrigation and Power Department vide notification dated 26.1.1999. The names of the petitioners figured at different serial numbers. The petitioners claim that they filed representations on 10.5.1999 against the said seniority lists and during the pendency of same respondents had been promoted by means of an order dated 19.6.1999 which respondents according to the petitioners were junior to them. The petitioners challenged the order dated 19.6.1999 through an Appeal No. 475-2000 before the Punjab Service Tribunal and the learned Tribunal was pleased to issue notice to the respondents for 6.3.2000 alongwith a direction for the maintenance Of status quo till 17.2.2000. According to the petitioners during the operation of the status quo order respondent No. 1 passed an order dated 21.2.2000 directing the petitioners to report to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Lahore Zone for further posting against their substantive posts (Sub-Engineers). Hence order dated 21.2.2000 has been challenged through these writ petitions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that order dated. 21.2.2000 has been passed in violation of the status quo order passed by the Service Tribunal in Appeal No. 475-2000 filed by the petitioners and is a nullity in law; that the Punjab Service Tribunal cannot issued contempt notice and has no power to execute its own order which has been flouted and also that this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction can direct the respondents to abide by the orders passed by the Service Tribunal.. It is further contended that the status quo order was duly conveyed to the respondent No. 1 but despite this the impugned order has been passed.
4. Parawise comments and report was called for from the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 has denied and raised the preliminary objection that due to the bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan these writ petitions are not maintainable and the learned Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction in respect of all the matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974. However, in the parawise comments and report it is admitted that the petitioners are eligible for promotion as SDO's in BS-17 on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. 20% quota is to be filled through promotion. The petitioners will be considered on their turn. Further, it is denied that respondents who were promoted were junior to the petitioners rather it has been stated that they were -senior to the petitioners. It is also denied that the order of the status quo was received in the office before passing the order dated 21.2.2000 and that after the order dated 21.2.2000 has taken effect it can only be challenged in the Service Tribunal and this Court'has no jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned order.
5. Mr. Muhammad Shan Gull learned Advocate for Advocate General, Punjab, appeared and has opposed these writ petitions on the ground that already Writ Petition No. 11893-96 on the same subject-matter was dismissed as the matter relates to the terms and conditions of a civil servant and that order has obtained finality as the petitioners accepted the order and filed civil appeal before the Service Tribunal. Any order passed subsequently by the competent authority even in violation of any order can only be challenged before the Service Tribunal and not before this Court in writ jurisdiction as the bar contained under Article .212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is absolute and attracted in this case. It is further contended that under Rule 10(b) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, read with Section 11 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, if a stop-gap arrangement is made and a civil servant is posted on current charge basis against this stop-gap arrangement, he can be reverted without any notice. Full Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 16957-2000 titled Muhammad Sarfraz Vs. Govt. of the Punjab has already held that ad-hoc appointment is a stop-gap arrangement and the order for the removal of an ad-hoc employee can be passed without issuance of a show-cause notice. It is further contended that in PLD 1949 Lahore 100, it has been held by a Full Bench of this Court that if a public functionary which is a party to a /is and before the receipt of the same, an order has been passed no contempt is committed by the authority and that the order cannot be set aside on this ground alone.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents attached with these petitions. I am in agreement with the arguments advanced by the learned-Advocate Mr. Muhammad Shan Gull for A.G. that the order impugned in these writ petitions has been passed before the receipt of the order of the Service Tribunal in the office. According to the parawise comments and report the order of the Service Tribunal about the status quo order though was passed in Civil Appeal No. 475-2000 but it was received in the office on 23.2.2000 whereas the order of the relinquishing of charge of the petitioners was implemented and acted upon on 21.2.2000 two days before the receipt of the order. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the A.G. on PLD 1949 Lahore 100 is fully applicable in this case. Impugned order cannot be said to be illegal and unlawful and no direction in writ jurisdiction can be issued to the public functionaries to take back their order on this score alone. Even otherwise the order passed on 21.12.1999 is an independent order and an appeal against the said order lies u/S. 4 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 before the Punjab Service Tribunal. This Court cannot interfere in writ jurisdiction and set aside the order due to the bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the petitioner himself has gone to the Service Tribunal after the dismissal of his earlier writ petition on the same ground that the matters relating to terms and conditions of a civil servant are appealable before the Service Tribunal and this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in such orders under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Even otherwise according to the petitioners they were appointed on current charge basis and not on the basis of seniority list. Under Rule 10(b) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 read with Section 11 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 a reversion order of an employee who has been appointed on ad-hoc basis can be passed without issuing of any show-cause notice and no right accrues in favour of such civil servants. I am also fortified by the view taken by this Court in Muhammad Sarfraz's case in W.P. No. 165972000 in which the appointments of Lecturers made on ad-hoc -basis were terminated by the Government of Punjab. Furthermore, the case reported as PLD 1949 Lahore 100 is a complete answer to the present petitioners.
These writ petitions have no merit and are dismissed.