1986 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-‑‑Muhammad Akram, ex‑Patwari has filed this appeal a/s 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order dated 4‑10‑1984, passed by Commissioner D.G. Khan Division, respondent No.2, confirming the order dated 19‑9‑1984, passed by Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Kot Adu, respondent No.3, whereby the services of the appellant as a Patwari of Tehsil Kot Adu, District Muzaffar Garh were terminated. 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and he be reinstated in service with all back benefits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Settlement operations were conducted in Kot Adu in 1972, and Settlement work was done within the scheduled period. Some posts were created purely on temporary basis and appointments against the same were made from qualified patwaris who were either retired or otherwise. The conditions prescribed for appointment as regular Patwaris were not kept in view. The condition of domicile and age was also not kept in view because these were not A the vacant posts having effect on the senority of any person. The appointment of the petitioner was also made by the Settlement Officer keeping in view the above conditions. On the winding up the Settlement Patwaris automatically stood terminated, as they were not appointees of revenue department in the relevant cadre. The services of the appellant were terminated alongwith 15 affected Patwaris, who went in appeal before the Commissioner, D.G. Khan Division. The Commissioner, D.G.Khan, accepted their appeal and remanded the case for fresh decision. That while on remand deciding the case afresh the A.C./ Collector Kot Adu retained and reinstated 11 Patwaris vide his order dated 16‑4‑1984, and the appellant was not retained. The appellant and four others preferred appeal before the Commissioner, D.G.Khan, who again remanded the case to A.C. Kot Addu. The learned A.C. Kot Adu rejected the case of the appellant. Their appeal before the Commissioner, stood rejected. Hence this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length at this stage of preliminary hearing, who has vehemently argued that the appellant was appointed in regular manner against a permanent vacancy and having put in nine years of service under the law he was a confirmed and permanent Patwari to hold the post till superannuation. He has impleaded that if at all some posts were retrenched, some junior persons should have been made to go and not the appellant. 5. We have taken all the arguments so advanced and what we find is that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant are absolutely without any basis for the simple reason that the appellant has no locus standi to be retained as Patwari, as he was never appointed on regular basis. He was only employed for Settlement operation and P when the settlement operation was completed, he was automatically to go, because his appointment was specifically for the said operation and nothing else. With regard to the observation of the learned Commissioner that the appellant was physically feeble, this may be considered as extra reason, for his non‑selection afresh, but does not give him any argument to say that he was removed from service because he was feeble, as the appellant's services were for a specific period, therefore, there was no ground to take recourse of departmental inquiry under the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975. 6. The result is we do not find any force in this appeal which is dismissed in limine. A. E. Appeal dismissed.