1990 PLP 1506 (SCMR)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner, a Civil Judge seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 16‑12‑1985 whereby his service appeal claiming certain benefits was dismissed.

2. The petitioner appeared in the competitive examination for recruitment to the posts of Civil Judges held in 1981. He could not then make the necessary grade for appointment as a Regular Civil Judge. Nevertheless, by an Order dated 28th of June, 1982, he was appointed on ad hoc basis alongwith others, as Civil Judge. The material condition attaching to the ad hoc appointment was condition No.(iii) in the appointment letter as hereunder:‑

"The appointees shall have to appear in the next competitive examination for Civil Judges to be conducted by the Punjab Public Service Commission to qualify themselves for regular appointment. In case they fail to qualify in the next competitive examination with the requisite standard laid down by the Punjab Public Service Commission or acquire a place in the merit list entitling them for regular appointment their ad hoc appointment shall be liable to be terminated immediately after the announcement of the result of the examination even though the period of this ad hoc appointment has not expired:'

3. The petitioner appeared in the next competitive examination and he claims to have satisfied the requirement. However, in the interregnum his services were terminated on the mistaken ground that he had not satisfied‑the condition. The termination order is dated 6th of October, 1983. He challenged the termination order before the Service Tribunal and while his appeal was pending there, he was regularly appointed as a Civil Judge on the basis of the subsequent competitive examination result and he took up the appointment on 3‑5‑1984 whereby his service appeal then pending, became infructuous.

4. After regular appointment to the service by the order dated 30th April, 1984, the petitioner wanted that the continuity of his service be ordered, the salary paid and the other service benefits granted to him for the period 9‑10‑1983 to 3‑5‑1984 when he remained out of employment under erroneous and illegal order of the Provincial Government.

5. The Service Tribunal examined all the aspects of the case and came to the conclusion that it was not tenable in view of the fact that the question of termination of his service had gone in appeal to the Supreme Court and that order was maintained. Seniority within the batch had been assured to him otherwise.

6. The petitioner's appointment in the first instance of which he wants to derive benefit was ad hoc. It could not be taken to be regular. The condition attaching to the ad hoc appointment was for the benefit of the Government and not for the benefit of the employee. What was stated in the condition was that not only was the petitioner obliged to appear in the next competitive examination but that if he did not make the grade, his ad hoc appointment could be terminated within the period of ad hoc appointment. In view of the zonal allocation and one of the posts remaining unfilled on account of a litigation going on in the Court, the petitioner cannot claim a right to induction in the service or satisfaction of the condition of his ad hoc appointment only on the strength of such a vacancy which was not immediately available for being Filled up. As and when a clear vacancy became available, the petitioner was appointed forthwith against that vacancy. In the circumstances neither the termination of ad hoc appointment can be objected to nor can the delayed filling up of the clear vacancy on 30th of April, 1984.

7. The petition raises no question of law of public importance and hence leave to appeal is refused. AA./Z‑81/S Leave refused.