RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--This appeal with the leave of this Court is directed against the Federal Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) judgment dated 16-11-1994 dismissing appellant's appeal against the departmental order dated 3-5-1992 relieving her of her duties as ad lecturer in Chemistry upon nomination of a candidate by the Federal Public Service Commission.
2. Appellant was appointed as lecturer in Chemistry (B-17) in the Federal Government Degree College, Lahore Cant vide offer of appointment dated 24-12-1988 on ad hoc basis for six months or till the availability of F.P.S.C. Nominee. One her request, she was transferred to Government College, Sialkot to serve as lecturer against the vacancy of a male lecturer as her husband was working in the said College. She continued serving as such till she was relieved of her duties on the selection of a candidate by F.P.S.C. Being aggrieved, she submitted a belated departmental appeal to the Defence Secretary on 10-12-1992, which was followed by various representations and reminders.
She was informed vide letter dated 30-3-1994 that her case was taken up with the Establishment Division but the said Division did not accede to her request. Copy of the aforesaid decision, according to her, was supplied to her upon her reminder vide U.O. Dated 20-9-1994, where after she preferred her appeal before the Tribunal alongwith an application for condo nation of delay.
3. Stance of the respondents is that the appellant was appointed on ad-hoc basis for six months or till the availability of F.P.S.C. Nominee, whichever be earlier. It was one of the terms and conditions of the appointment that it was purely ad hoc and could be terminated on a fortnight's notice without assigning any reason therefor.
4. On evaluation of the record, the tribunal concluded that appellant being an ad hoc appointee, could not claim her retention after the availability of a nominee by F.P.S.C. According to the Tribunal, there was no infringement of terms and conditions of her appointment. The Tribunal, also non-suited the appellant on the ground of limitation as the departmental order was passed on 3- 5-1992; she was required to make departmental appeal within thirty days but, for the first time, she preferred departmental appeal on 10-12-1992 followed by reminders; her appeal was rejected by the departmental authority vide letter dated 30-3-1994 and she was required to approach the Tribunal within thirty days but she failed to do so. She had pressed into service letter dated 20-9- 1994 issued by the Ministry of Defence, where under copy of earlier letter dated 30-3-1994 was supplied to her, which would not advance her cause because the earlier letter rejecting her appeal was also sent on her given address and there was no reason to believe that it did not reach her.
5. Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether termination of service of the appellant was in violation of Establishment Division O.M. No,3/29/70-D.III dated 7th February, 1971 laying down the principle that in the event of reversion/termination of ad hoc appointees, when F.P.S.C. Qualified candidates become available reversion/termination should be made in the reverse order of ad hoc appointments.
6. Mr. Muhammad Sarwar Rana, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the appellant contented that no doubt the appellant was appointed on ad hoc basis for fixed tenure or till the availability of candidate selected by F.P.S.C., her employment could not be terminated as she was not the junior most among the lecturers appointed on ad hoc basis. He referred to letter dated 14-2-1993 whereby period of ad hoc appointment in respect of Mr.Zahid Manzoor and four women lecturers was extended up to 30-9-1993 or till the availability of F.P.S.C. Nominees or regularization of their service through a legislative dispensation.
7. At the very outset, it may be observed that this ground was not agitated before the Tribunal, as there is no reference to it in the judgment under appeal or in the memo. Of appeal. Surprisingly, memo. Of appeal preferred by the appellant before the Tribunal refers to O.M. No,Vol.1(8)/72-D.III dated 11-7-1972 purportedly stipulating that termination of service of ad hoc appointees should occur in the adverse order of seniority, it is, not clear from the record made available, whether this ground was pressed into service at the hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal. Be that as it may, stance of the department appears to be that services of the appellant were dispensed with alongwith other ad hoc appointees as she was not discriminated as wrongly agitated by her.
Learned counsel also referred to notification dated 22-7-1993 notifying extension of ad hoc appointment of as many as eighty-two female as well as male lecturers for a further period of three months with effect from 1-7-1993 with a view to show that Mr.Zahid .Manzoor, Mrs. Ayesha Wajid, Mrs. Azra Batool, Ghazala Zia and Kalsoom Akhtar were junior to her in the order of appointment yet their period of ad hoc appointment was extended in preference to her. Be that as it may, the aforesaid notification was admittedly issued long after the termination of service of the appellant. The submission is, therefore, not well founded. At any rate, she lost any locus standi to challenge the said notification because she did not persue her remedy before proper forum. It is the case of the departmental authority throughout that on nomination of Mr. Mamoorul Ghani, candidate selected by the F.P.S.C. Against the vacancy of a lecturer in Government College, Sialkot, she was relieved of her duties. Since the appellant was temporarily adjusted against this post as an stopgap arrangement and appointment on ad hoc basis does not confer any right to seniority or continuation of employment on her, we do not feel persuaded to strike down the departmental order on this ground.
8. Learned counsel laid much stress on the circumstance that appellant's appeal was strongly recommended by Secretary Defence to the Secretary General Establishment but it was arbitrarily turned down by the Establishment Division on the ground of delay in processing the case, as, in the meanwhile a number of other lecturers, appointed on ad hoc basis, had been accommodated. Be that as it may, if the Establishment Division on evaluation of available data and circumstances, of the case, did not accede to the recommendation of the parent department, appellant was required to promptly challenge the same before the proper forum instead of sleeping over the matter for a long time. As against her termination vide order dated 3=54992, for the first time, she approached to Departmental Appellate Authority on 10-12-1992 instead of appealing within thirty days prescribed for this purpose, Again, despite expiry of ninety days for the decision of her appeal, she went on submitting uncalled for reminders to the Appellate Authority, which would not have the effect of enlarging the period of limitation. She was informed vide letter dated 30-3-1994 that the Establishment Division did not accede to her request. This letter was addressed to her and sent at the address given by her in the departmental appeal, and in the ordinary course of business, it is deemed to have been received by her. It was, therefore, incumbent upon her to prefer an appeal within thirty days from the receipt of this letter but she waited till another copy of the letter was supplied to her vide letter dated 20-9-1994. If the appellant had been lethargic, negligent and inactive in prosecuting her remedy, she should thank herself rather than the Departmental Authorities.
9. Learned counsel further contended that, in pursuance to Prime Minister's directive, a good number of ad hoc lecturers' services were regularized. He cited the case of Miss Saba Madni, serving as lecturer in Chemistry, Federal Government College. Peshawar and submitted that had the appellant been not relieved of her duties, she having completed more than two years' service, her appointment could have been regularized. Prime Minister's directive dated 21-5-1992 is incorporated in the letter dated 16-6-1992 addressed to all the Principals of Federal Government Colleges which, inter alia, tends to indicate that ad hoc lecturers, who had completed two years' service and against whom no one was nominated by F.P.S.C., would continue their service beyond 30-8-1992 or till the decision of the Federal Government. Without going deeper into this argument as the same has not been dilated upon in the impugned judgment, suffice it to observe, no doubt appellant had completed more than two years' service on ad hoc basis, her services were dispensed with only when a nominee of the F.P.S.C: was available to the department against the vacancy held by her on purely temporary basis. Even otherwise, the Prime Minister's directive was issued much later to the termination of the appellant's services, therefore, the same would not advance her cause in the peculiar circumstances.
10. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment in Civil Petitions Nos. 1093 and others of 2002 decided by this Court on 25-9-2002 converting a large number of petitions into appeals and disposing of the same in the light of Federal Government policy decision vide Circular Letter dated 21-10-1997 relating to ad hoc lecturers of Punjab Government, who were fully qualified and recruited after following the prescribed procedure by referring their cases to the Punjab Public Service Commission. Learned Deputy Attorney-General points out that in the above said set of petitions, nominees of the Service Commission were not available, therefore, this Court had taken a compassionate view extending the benefit of the Federal Government policy to the petitioners in the said cases whereas the appellant is no longer in, service. He is right in stating that, in law, there is no concept of reinstatement of an ad hoc employee whose services were dispensed with in accordance with the terms and conditions of offer of appointment. Undoubtedly, the petitioner was appointed as lecturer on ad hoc basis as a stopgap arrangement for tenure of six months or till the availability of a nominee by F.P.S.C. Ad hoc appointment of a person does not confer any right or interest to continuous appointment, seniority, or promotion. It is held by an incumbent till a person is regularly selected by the Public Service Commission for the post held by an ad-hoc appointee. It is well-settled that the services of such employee can be dispensed with at any moment without assigning any reason. Section 11 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 specifies cases in which the service of a civil servant may be terminated without notice. Precisely, it deals with the termination of service of a civil servant during the initial or extended period of probation, on the expiry of initial or extended period of employment or if the appointment is made ad hoc terminable on appointment of a person on the recommendation of the selection authority. On the appointment of such person it would appear that no right as to continuation of service vests in a person appointed on ad hoc basis. Only safeguard provided in subsection (3) of section 11 is that services of such appointee shall be liable to termination on fourteen days' notice or pay in lieu thereof. We need not cite any precedent in support of the view, yet reference may be made to a Division Bench judgment of the Sindh High Court i,e, Dr.Muhammad Younis v. Province of Sindh (1989 PLC (C.S.) 8) and Federation of Pakistan v. Rais Khan (1993 SCMR 609). Undisputedly, appellant ceased to be a lecturer after her relief on expiry of tenure of her ad hoc appointment. Admittedly, she did not approach the departmental authorities for regularization of her services and remained content by preferring a belated service appeal before the Tribunal and after obtaining leave to appeal from this Court as far back as 18-2-1996. We repeatedly asked learned counsel for the, appellant whether there was any restraint or injunctive order against the appellant from applying for regularisation of her services by the departmental authority or appearing before the F.P.S.C. But he did not submit any satisfactory reply except that she did not resort to the above options in view of pendency of her appeal before this Court. There is no substance in this stance of the appellant and she must suffer the consequences.
11., For the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no merit in this petition, which must fail and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.