1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

NOOR MU14AMMAD MAGSI (MEMBER). ‑‑‑Briefly, the facts of this appeal are that the appellant joined as LDC in Pakistan Railways Police on 17‑3‑1987 and was promoted as UDC vide ofGc6 order dated 16‑11‑1991. After satisfactory completion of the probationary period, he was provisionally confirmed as UDC with effect from 16‑11‑1991 by Superintendent, Pakistan Railways Police, vide order dated 30.11.1993. Later on, the confirmation order was recalled by the D.I.G vide order dated 6‑1‑1994. In the meantime, on joining of respondent No.4 from Rawalpindi to Lahore, the appellant was consequently reverted to his substantive post of LDC vide order-dated 6‑1‑1994. Feeling aggrieved, he made appeal to the I.G. Railway Police on 20‑1‑1994 but the same was rejected vide letter dated 27‑7‑1994. He then filed this appeal before the Tribunal on 31‑8‑1994.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. His contention is that the appellant was regularly promoted as UDC and having been confirmed in that post, he was not liable to reversion On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the appellant's promotion as UDC was made against direct quota and on joining of respondent No.4, he being the junior most, was reverted to his original post of LDC. It was also contended that the confirmation order was made in disregard of the rules without processing the case through the Confirmation Committee and as such the same could be revoked without notice by the competent authority.

3. The respondents have not filed comments and to arrive at a just conclusion, we requisitioned the departmental record and have gone through the file. From the record, it appears that the appellant was promoted as UDC against the post of direct quota. At the relevant time, there were 11 posts of UDC in Lahore Division ‑and according to the rules, 20% posts were reserved for direct recruits and the promotion of the appellant having been made against a direct recruit quota was contrary to the rules and as such his promotion could not be treated as regular promotion but it was an ad hoc promotion made otherwise than the prescribed rules and such an appointment or promotion is liable to' reversion without notice. The respondent No.4 who had earlier been invalidated, was reappointed in pursuance of the orders of the Ministry of Railways, and on his transfer to Lahore, from where he had been invalidated, he joined as UDC and the appellant being a junior most, was rightly reverted to his substantive post of UDC, and he being an ad hoc promotee, his reversion order cannot be taken to exception. It is also pertinent to mention here that on departmental appeal, the case of the appellant was considered at the level of the I.G. who gave him personal hearing; but his request for restoration as UDC could not be acceded under the rules. Therefore, there has been no illegality in the impugned order. As regards the confirmation order, that order was made provisionally in violation of the rules and it was an, illegal order and such an order could be revoked without notice by the competent authority.

4. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is without merit and dismissed, with no order as to costs. H.B.T./1022/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.