1989 PLP 754 (PLC(CS))

Division Superintendent, Pakistan Railways Multan v. Anwar‑ul‑Haq 1985 P L C 81 distinguished. Muhammad Ahmad Bani for Appellants. Muhammad Iqbal Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 30th August, 1988. The appeal captioned above emerges from the decision dated 24‑5‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, Camp at Sahiwal, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his confirmation and fixation of seniority has been dismissed.

2. The facts are that the appellant was employed as Assistant Lineman Vide order Exh. P.2, dated 13‑9‑1980 the appellant was put to officiate as JELL on ad hoc basis as local arrangement subject to clearance of selection at the Headquarters Office. It is clear from Exh. P‑2 that only by way of local arrangement the appellant was put to officiate on the post. This is not the case of the appellant that he had been selected by the Headquarters for the said post afterwards or that his posting on the post had been approved. This is true that on account of the ban imposed upon direct recruitments the appellant was put to officiate beyond the quota meant for promotion but that would give him a right of retaining the post and he may not be reverted in order to rill m the vacancy by direct appointment, but since his posting was not by way of regular promotion and had not become final by getting clearance from the Headquarters, he had no right to ask for his confirmation against the said post.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited "Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Multan v. Anwar‑ul‑Haq" reported in 1985 P L C 81 but the same is distinguishable. In that case there was no evidence that the post to which the employee had been promoted was a selection post, whereas in the present case this point is not disputed by the appellant. The appellant has not shown that during the tenure of his service as JELC no selection was held. Even if it was so, since he was made to officiate subject to the condition of selection by the Headquarters office he may have himself moved the concerned authorities or the Headquarters office to consider his case for selection, but there is no evidence to that effect. If he had done so and his case had not been considered by the Headquarters Office for selection, there could be scope to say that he was not responsible. In cases where the turn to fill in the vacancy is not by promotion but is by direct appointment, even the persons already in service can compete in the selection and thus it is open to the appellant to try his luck whenever advertisement for direct appointment is made.

4. In the circumstances discussed above, the grievance petition of the appellant was rightly dismissed. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed. A.E./595/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.