' JAVED IQBAL, J.---These petitions for leave to appeal are directed against common judgment, dated 22-9-2001 passed by learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the appeals preferred on - behalf of petitioners have been dismissed and the order of Competent Authority concerning their removal from service has been kept intact. The above captioned petitions involving similar questions of law and facts are being disposed of by this order.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis and subsequently regularized in an illegal manner and contrary to rules and thereafter their services were terminated being regularized in violation of the relevant law and procedure prescribed thereunder.
3. Heard Mr. Muhammad Riaz Lone, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioners who mainly argued that service of petitioners could not have been terminated without having a full- fledged inquiry and besides that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioners.
It is also contended that the appointments of petitioners were made by the Competent Authority and their services were regularized in accordance with law.
4. We have carefully examined the contentions as canvassed at the bar in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. There is no denying the fact that the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis having no legal footings till regularization of their service which was to be made in accordance with the provisions as contained in sections 10 and 11 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 read with rule 22 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1974, which appears to be quite exhaustive in nature, comprehensive and capable enough to meet all sorts of eventualities concerning ad hoc appointments. On the touchstone of the criterion as stipulated in the above mentioned Act and Rules made thereunder the case of petitioners has been examined whose appointment letter, dated 12-11-1996 made it abundant clear that they were appointed in a purely temporary capacity for a period of six months liable to be terminated at any time on one week notice with specific condition that these appointments will not confer any right of regular appointment. The petitioners were never regularized by following the prescribed procedure, the posts were never advertised, no examination whatsoever was held, no Selection Committee was constituted and in such circumstances the question of recognition of merits to be determined by the objective criteria does not arise which, if allowed to continue, would certainly lead to disastrous consequences. The regularization made in contravention of prescribed procedure cannot be equated with that of a "legal regularization" and in absence whereof the status of ad hoc or temporary appointees cannot be changed unless regularized legally by adopting the prescribed procedure which was never followed. No legal right whatsoever had been created in favour of the petitioners which could refrain the Competent Authority from retracting their steps taken by them and accordingly the Competent Authority was competent to remove the petitioners from service. It is worthmentioning that service of ad hoc/temporary appointees could be terminated by the Departmental Authority without assigning any reason for the same and even without a show-cause notice and mere by afflux no ad hoc/temporary appointment could be converted to regular appointment till the prescribed procedure is followed. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in Pakistan v. Muhammad Himayatuilah (PLD 1969 SC 407), Dr. Muhammad Yunis v. Province of Sindh (1989 PLC (C.S.) 8), Fayaz Hussain Shah v. Province of Sindh (1991 PLC (C.S.,) 447), Province of Punjab v. Azhar Abbas (2002 SCMR 1). The learned Punjab Service Tribunal has dilated upon the controversy in a comprehensive manner and dismissed the appeals vide judgment impugned with the following conclusion:-- "4. Learned counsel appearing in these appeals, in most of the appeals, admitted that the appointment was on ad hoc basis and later on it was regularized and without any fault of their they were removed from service. They have also pleaded rule of locus poenitentiae in their favour. In two cases that of Muhammad Ali and Allah Dad in Service Appeal No,587 of 1999, learned counsel cleverly omitted to append order of appointment or order of regularization of ad hoc appointment but during the hearing of the appeals, departmental representative presented to us copy of their appointment letters and copy of the order by virtue of which they were regularized. We have thoroughly scrutinized the record available with the departmental representative with the assistance of learned District Attorney. All appointments on ad hoc basis exceed one year and in some cases goes up to 3 years. No advertisement for appointment on regular basis, was .Ever circulated through any newspaper and no Committee was constituted to appoint people on merits. All the appellants, who were admittedly serving on ad hoc basis were regularized in service in a mechanical manner without following the mandatory statutory rules highlighted in rule 22 (ibid). The appointments on regular basis being contrary to the rules do not confer any vested right on the appellants to continue in service. Defect being inherent continues indefinitely till it is removed and the only methodology of rectification is the termination of services. Learned counsel also argued that the Authority and the Appellate Authority have terminated their service for different reasons, not necessarily confined to the disqualification of ad hoc appointment being regularized in an illegal manner, therefore, prosecution cannot make any premium from the order of removal. We fear this argument would not, in any manner, improve the case of the appellants.
The stark fact remained that the appellant was on ad hoc basis and it could only be regularized in the manner discussed in the preceding paragraph which having not done so, the disqualification remained attached to the appointment. Rule of locus poenitentiae is not applicable as the regularization was made in an illegal manner contrary to the rules. Transparency has to be apparent in every appointment as held by the apex Court from time to time. Every person has to be given an opportunity in accordance with Fundamental Right No,18 who fulfills the qualification as PTC Teacher, a chance to complete on merits. Any appointment derogatory to such a procedure offends the aforesaid fundamental right and has to be struck down."
5. The conclusion as arrived at by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal being well based does not warrant any interference and besides that no question of law of public importance is involved on the basis whereof leave could be granted. The petitions being devoid of merit are dismissed.