1. SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--The aforementioned three appeals filed by Ghulam Qadir Khan involve a common question of law and are disposed of by this common order.
2. The facts forming back ground to these appeals are that Mr. Ghulam Haider Khan respondent in Appeal No. 58, Mr. Abdul Rauf Khan respondent in Appeal No. 59 and Mr. Sabir Hussain Khan respondent in Appeal No. 60 of 1977 were employed as Assistants in deferent sections of the Civil Secre--tariat of Azad Kashmir and were promoted by the Azad Kashmir Government (respondent No. l in each appeal) to the posts of Section Officers on ad hoc basis subject to confirmation by the public Service Commission vide its order No. Admin/23582-89/75 dated 9-12-1975, No. Admin/22993-98-/75 dated 3-12-1975 and No Admin/26697-72/76 dated 29-12-1976 respectively.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the promotions of the said respondents Mr. Ghulam Qadir Khan appellant who is also an Assistant in the Law Department of Civil Secretariat lodged separate and individual appeal against each of the impugned promotion order before this Tribunal.
4. He has challenged the impugned orders mainly on the ground that he being senior to be promotee respondents in the cadre of Assistants was entitled to be promoted to the post of Section Officer in preference to each one of them under rules and as such the impugned orders have been made in violation of the service rules, particularly Articles 24 of the Kashmir Service Regulations Vol. 11. On the basis of the above claim he has prayed for the grant of following declarations in each of his appeal.
(a) That he be declared senior to the promotee respondent in the cadre of Assistants.
(b) That impugned order is illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect against his rights.
(c) That he is entitled to the promotion to the post of Section Officer in preference to the promotee respondents with effect from the date of impugned order with all the emoluments and other privileges attached to the said post.
5. All these appeals have been contested by the respondents who have put in written objections. The common grounds taken by the respondents in their written objections in each appeal are that the appeal is incompetent, premature and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear it in view of the proviso (b) to section 4 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Service Tribunal Act, 1975 (herein--after referred to as an Act) as the impugned orders involve the questions of determination of finless of a person to be promoted to a higher post, that the impugned order is perfectly legal and no infringement of the service rules has taken place as promotes-respondents have been promoted on the basis of merit and ability in accordance with the service rules and that the appellant has no preferential claim to promotion on the basis of mere seniority.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in each appeal separately and have also gone through the relevant record of the cases. After carefully examining the impugned orders and the relevant law we are of the firm view that these appeals are not maintainable before the Service Tribunal which lacks the jurisdiction to entertain or hear them. The right of appeal against an order of the competent authority has been granted to an aggrieved civil servant under section 4 of the Act. The relevant portion of which reads as under:-
4. "Appeal to Tribunal.-Any civil servant aggrieved by any final order, whether original or appellate, made by a departmental authority in respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service including disciplinary matter may, within thirty days of the communication of such order to him or within six months of the establishment of theappropriate Tribunal, whichever is later, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal."
7. From the above-quoted provision of the Act it becomes abundantly clear that two conditions must be satisfied before a civil servant can approach this Tribunal for the redress of his grievances arising out of an order of the competent authority. First of all the order of the departmental authority should be final and secondly it should relate to the terms and conditions of his service.
8. Unless both these conditions are fulfilled the aggrieved civil servant was not right to come up in appeal before this Tribunal. In other words it is not each and every order of the competent authority in respect of which the civil servant feels aggrieved which confers right of appeal on him but only such an order can be brought under challenge by way of appeal before this Tribunal which besides adversely effecting the terms and conditions of service is also final and conclusive. It means that finality and conclusiveness an order passed by the competent authority is essential and prerequisite for the conferment of right of cognizance of an appeal on the aggrieved civil servant for redress of his grievances before the Service Tribunal and if the order appealed against lacks this essential character of finality then it falls outside the jurisdiction and scope of the Service Tribunal to entertain an appeal against it notwithstanding the fact that a civil servant considers that his service rights have been adversely effected by such an order. The impugned orders in these appeals by no stretch of imagination can be termed as final which in our view are purely interim and of temporary nature. As the plain reading of the impugned orders would show the promotions of the concerned respondents have been made purely on ad hoc basis subject to the confirmation by the Public Service Commission. An ad hoc appointment as defined in the Civil Servants Act "an appointment of duly qualified person made otherwise than in accordance with the prescribed method of recruitment, pending recruitment in accordance with such method". This means that an appointment which is not made on regular basis in accordance with rules prescribed for the purpose is an ad hoc appointment. But it may not be out of place to mention here that at the time of the passing of each of the impugned orders there was no provision for making an ad hoc appointment as Civil Servants Act which makes provision for making such an appointment was not enacted as yet. It appears that the word ad hoc in two of the impugned orders has probably been used in the sense of temporary appointment which the Government had power to make under rule 14 of Service Regulations, Volume 11 relevant portion of which reads as under:-
14. (i) "where it is necessary in the public interest owing to an emergency which has arisen and could not have been foreseen to fill immediately a vacancy in a post borne on the cadre of a service, class or category and the making of an appointment to such vacancy in accordance with these rules would involve undue delay, excessive expenditure or administrative inconvenience, the appointing authority may appoint a person, otherwise than in accordance with the said rules temporarily, until a person is appointed in accordance with the said rules but such temporary appointment shall in no case exceed 3 months on such occasion.
(iii) A person appointed under clause (i) shall be replaced as soon as possible by a member of the service or a candidate qualified and considered to hold the post under the said rules.
(iv) A person appointed under clause (i) shall not be regarded as a pro--bationer in such service, class or category or be entitled by reason only of such appointment to any preferential claim to future appoint--ment to such service, class or category."
9. The above provisions of the Kashmir Service Regulations make it clear that a temporary appointment is only a stop gap local arrangement made in an emergency to fill immediately a vacancy with a view to avoiding undue delay, excessive expenditure and administrative inconvenience involved in making an appointment in accordance with the prescribed rules and is liable to be terminated on the appointment of a qualified person on regular basis. Morover it cannot be made for a period exceeding 3 months in any case on each occasion and the appoint there to has no, preferential claim to future substantive appointment to such a post merely' by virtue of his temporary appointment to it. Thus in view of the provision of Civil Servant Act, 1976 and Kashmir Service Regulations referred to above an order of ad hoc and temporary promotion and appointment is not a final and conclusive order's and further order is required to be made for filling the vacancy on substantive and permanent basis in regular manner in accordance with the law governing) such an appointment.
10. The contents to the impugned orders themselves clearly speak of the temporary and an ad hoc nature of the impugned appointment by promotion. In the first two impugned orders the promotions of Messrs Ghulam Haider Khan and Abdul Rauf Khan are respectively shown to be on ad hoc basis subject to the confirmation by the public service commission whereas accord--ing to the last impugned order, promotion of Mr. Sabir Hussain Khan res--pondent has also been made subject to the approval of the P. S. C. Which thus having not been made in accordance with the prescribed method tanta--mounts to be on ad hoc basis in view of the definition of an ad hoc appointment as contained in A. K. Civil Servant Act, 1976. Moreover the appellant himself has described all the impugned promotions to be on ad hoc basis in his memo--randum of appeal.
11. In view of what has been stated above we have come to the conclusion that all the appointments by promotions impugned in these appeals are purely temporary and ad hoc and consequently the impugned orders are not final orders of the competent authority which are yet to be made in accordance with the prescribed method with regard to the filling of vacancies of the posts of Section Officers being presently held by the promotee respondents in these appeals temporarily.
12. The temporary or ad hoc appointment does not confer on its incumbent any right to a membership or to a sonority of a particular service and stands terminated on an appointment of a person on regular basis. Under section 11 of Azad Jammu & Kashmir Civil Servant Act, 1976 a civil servant appointed to a higher post or grade on ad hoc or on officiating basis is liable to reversion to his lower post or grade without notice. In view of this legal position when an ad hoc or temporary appointee does not possess any rights in service which are vested in a civil servant appointed on regular basis, and he can be got rid of without observing the formalities necessary for the removal from service or reduction to lower rank of a permanent employee, so such an ad hoc and temporary appointment or promotion does not adversely effect the terms and conditions of any other civil servant so as to give him any cause of action en--titling him to approach this Tribunal under section 4 of the Act for redress of his grievances.
13. In the context of the nature of the impugned appointment by promotion the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that since the promotee respondents are continuing to hold the posts to which they were on ad hoc basis promoted beyond the period of 6 months prescribed as a maximum period for such an appointment, these promotions have become of permanent nature thereby giving right of appeal to the appellant. We find ourselves unable to appre--ciate this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. 1t is, of course, correct that the ad hoc appointment now under the Azad Jammu & Kashmir (Appointments and Conditions) Rules, 1975 cannot exceed beyond the period of 6 months and similarly temporary appointment made under Kashmir Service Regulations could not be made for a period exceeding 3 months on each occasion but merely by reason of the ad hoc or temporary appointee continuing beyond the period prescribed by any rule or regulation for ad hoc e or temporary appointment does not by itself change the nature of ills original appointment thereby making his an ad hoc or temporary appointment as sub-- substantive or on regular basis. Moreover this Tribunal cannot go beyond the contents of the impugned orders and has to confine itself to them while deciding these appeals. In this view of the matter this contrition of the learned counsel for the appellant carries no weight and cannot be taken into account while determining the nature of the appointments impugned in these appeals.
14. The upshot of the above discussion is that impugned orders being of temporary and ad hoc promotions and appointments are not final orders of the departmental authority and have not resulted in the breach of any terms and conditions of the service of the appellant who cannot be deemed to have been aggrieved by any final order of the competent authority within the mean-- ing of section 4 of the Act so as to be entitled to approach this Tribunal for his grievances.
15. All these appeals, in our view, are misconceived and premature inas--much as the right of appeal before the Service Tribunal would accrue to the appellant against only those orders or order by which vacancies of the posts of Section Officers being presently held by the promotee respondents temporarily and on ad hoc basis are filled on permanent and regular basis.
16. For the reason stated above all those three appeals are dismissed as being incompetent and un- maintainable with no order as to costs.
17. Before we part with the case we, in view of our general observation in these as well as in other decided and pending appeals, are constrained to observe that the temporary and ad hoc appointments in most of the cases are allowed to continue beyond the period prescribed under the service rules with the result that such an unwarranted and irregular continuation naturally causes heart-burning, frustration, discouragement and disappointment to those civil servants who consider themselves to have preferential claims to such appoint--ment if made on regular basis and who, as a last resort, are compelled to involve themselves in the fruitless litigation in the Courts of law thereby wasting their money, energy and time which could otherwise usefully be utilized in the performance of their official duties. Thus it would be in the interest of justice and better administration that the appointing authority adheres to the prescribed rules with regard to temporary, ad hoc or officiating appointments and takes timely steps to regularise such appointments before the expiry of the prescribed period. The non-observance of the rules in such cases, beside giving genuine cause of grievance to other civil servants is bound to have adverse impact and effect on the efficient, proper and smooth working of the E administration as a civil servant, who is dissatisfied, disgruntled, mentally disturbed and in whose mind a sense of injustice having been done to him is lurking all along cannot be expected to put best of his ability and efficiency in his official work which is otherwise expected of one who is fully satisfied with the conditions of his employment.
18. YH. GHULAM QADIR (MEMBER). -I agree.