KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, It was gh an order dated 1.12.1994 passed by the Distric' alth Officer of Gujrat/Mandi Bahauddin that one Zafar lqbal Gondal, R/Grapher. Of R.H.C. Parianwalai was granted earned leave for 120 days and through the same order Zahid lqbal petitioner was appointed as R/Grapher, for 120 days only, against the said leave vacancy. i.e. w.e.f. 1.12.1994 tc 30.3.1995.
Subsequently, another order was passed by the same D.H.O. Whereby the services of Zahid lqbal petitioner were placed at the disposal of the office of DHO with immediate effect. He was then posted at R.H.C. Bheka More against a permanent vacancy of Radiographer. The claim of the petitioner is that since he had once been posted against a permanent post therefore, he had acquired a permanent and regular recruitment into service and his services thereafter could not have been terminated in the impugned manner.
2. From the record, it transpires that when this illegality came to the notice of the competent authority, a notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause why his services should not be terminated. On his failure to appear in pursuance of this notice and to offer any plausible explanation in his defence, his services were dispensed with. He then approached the Punjab Service Tribunal submitting that his service had stood regularized; that he was a regular/permanent employee of the Government and that his services thus could not have been terminated except in the manner prescribed for a regular employee.
3. The learned Service Tribunal found that the petitioner had been appointed only against a leave vacancy nd that also for only 120 days and thus he did not get other with any right to regular/permanent absorption into ce. It had been further held by the said learned Tribunal at any error or collusion on the part of some authority in smuggling a person into regular service through a door not ant for the purpose could not be blessed with sanctity. It is t denied that the vacancies of R/Grapher, as is evident from advertisement appearing at page 30 of this paper book, required to be filled through selection on open merit through the prescribed procedure after advertising the in question and inviting applications from all those eligible and interested. Admittedly this procedure had not been adopted in the case of the petitioner and in the circumstances, the petitioner did not deserve any relief.
4. It was also submitted before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner that two persons namely Safdar Hussain and Sajid A.I had been absorbed as regular employees by first appointing them against leave vacancies and then regularizing their services and that denying he same treatment to the petitioner was discriminatory and thus hit by the provisions of Article 25 of the Constitution. Suffice it to say that an illegal order passed or fraud committed by some authority is hardly a precedent for this Court to follow. Equal treatment is envisaged in the matters of law and justice and not in illegality or crime. In any case one wrong act does not every justify another such act. It may also be added that as per the provisions of Article 212(3) of the Constitution, an appeal in such like matters is competent before this Court only if such a matter involves a substantial question of law of public importance. The case in hand does not disclose any such situation.
5. Int his view of the matter, this petition is dismissed. .