1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑ Ss. 2 & 4‑‑Candidate Kanungo, Naib‑Tehsildar or Tehsildar completing training but not yet notified as appointed to service‑Not Civil servants nor entitled to appeal before Tribunal. Province of Punjab v. Muhammad Sharif P L D 1959 S C (Pak.) 61 rel. M. SALEEM CHAUDHURY (CHAIRMAN).‑In these ten appeals the appellants who were selected as Tehsildars/Kanungo candidates are aggrieved by the order of the Competent Authority terminating their service. The learned Government Pleader has raised a preliminary objection that the appeals are incompetent inasmuch as the appellants cannot be treated to be civil servants as defined by the Punjab Service Tribunals Act of 1974. According to the learned Government Pleader the appellants, who were merely selected as candidates KanungoJNaib‑Tehsildars/Tehsildars, were never appointed as such and had not yet become the members of any service under the Punjab Province nor they could be deemed to have held any civil post in connection with the affairs of the Province of Punjab. Relying upon the definition of the civil servant contained in the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, the learned Government Pleader contended that "a candidate" was not the holder of a civil, post in connection with the affairs of the Province. He relied upon Province of Punjab v, Muhammad Sharif (P L D 1959 S C (Pak.) 61), in this behalf. Reliance was placed, in particular, on the following observations: "In view of our findings on the facts of this case that the Respondents did not go beyond the stage of an accepted "Candidate Ziladars", when he was discharged, he cannot be said to be holding a civil post in Pakistan at the time of his discharge and so, therefore, is not entitled to the protection under section 240, subsection (3) of the Government of India Act." The appellants endeavoured to meet the objection by pointing out that they were selected by the Collector/Commissioner/Board of Revenue for appoint ment as Kanungo/Naib‑Tehsildar/Tehsildar respectively. They completLd the prescribed training period and after the completion of training, they were not to undergo any further test or selection. The appellants claimed that they worked as Tehsildars/Naib‑Tehsildars for full one year and they performed the same functions and got the same salary as incumbents of such offices thus they stood appointed in service under rule 8 of the West Pakistan Tehsildari and Naib‑Tehsildari Service Rules, 1962. The appellants also submitted that the Service Rules did not define "candidate" and thus a candidate as such had no entity under the Rule. The Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that there was no appointment to the service under the Rules, unless a regular notification appointing them as such, was issued. He submitted that it was a common case that no such Notification had been issued. We have heard the parties. It is not disputed by the appellants that the appointment as Tehsildar/Naib‑Tehsildar has to be preceded by a Gazette Notification and no such Notification, appointing them as Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar, has been issued. It is also admitted that no formal orders in any form have been issued appointing the candidates to the service. We are, therefore, not inclined to accept the contention of the appellants that they stood appointed to the service. The appellants, who have not been able to pro duce anything to displace the view expressed in the authority cited above. In face of this authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court of Pakistan we are bound to hold that since the appellants who were merely candidates were neither members of the Punjab Tehsildari/Naib‑Tehsildari/Kanungo service nor held any civil post in relation to the Punjab Province, therefore, they could not be deemed to be the civil servants under the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974. We accordingly, hold that these appeals are incompetent and are, therefore, dismissed. As we have held that the appeals were not maintainable the arguments raised by the appellants as to the validity of Martial Law Instruction No. 21 and the action taken thereunder do not call for any decision by this Tribunal. Consequently, the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs.