1980 PLP 748 (SCMR)

ASLAM RIAZ HUSAIN, J.‑This is a petition by Mr. J. P. Lobo against the Order of tike Service Tribunal dated 28th May, 1979 whereby his appeal before the Tribunal was dismissed. The facts giving rise to the present petition are briefly as follows.

2. J. P. Lobo, petitioner was employed as Examiner of Trade Marks (Grade 18) with effect from 15th January, 1958. He worked in that capacity till 25th July, 1973. Thereafter, on 26th July, 1973 he was promot ed as Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks (a post carrying grade 17) vide Notification dated 23rd July, 1973 reproduced below :‑ "Notification.‑The following Examiners of Trade Marks in the Office of the Registrar of Trade Marks, Karachi, are appointed as Assistant Registrars of Trade Marks on ad hoc basis with effect from the days they assume charge of the new posts for a period of six months or until the revision amendment of the rules for recruitment for Class I and Class II (gazetted) posts in the Trade Marks Registry whichever is earlier :‑ Mr. J. P. Lobo Mr. S. M. Akhtar."

3. The post of Assistant Registrar was subsequently advertised by the Department for direct recruitment. Mr. Lobo made representations asking for cancelling the advertisement of the post by direct recruitment and praying for filling it by promoting him in the departmental quota. But he was informed vide letter dated 25th August, 1975 that his appointment as Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks has not been approved and that be was reverted to the post of Examiner of Trade Marks. This fact was also published in a Notification dated 21st August, 1975. He filed an appeal against his reversion before the Service Tribunal which was dismissed vide the impugned Order. Hence the present petition. The main grievance of the petitioner as put forward by his counsel was that since he had been appointed as Asstt. Registrar on the recommen dation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, he could not be reverted and secondly that a show cause notice should have been issued to him before ordering his reversion. This contention overlooks the fact that according to the Notification whereby the was promoted to the post of Asstt. Registrar (which has been reproduced above), his appointment was clearly on ad hoc basis. His second contention overlooks the fact that according to section 12 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 a civil servant appointed to a higher post or grade on `ad hoc' basis was liable to reversion to his lower post or grade without notice. The petitioner, therefore, has no cause of grievance specially in view of the fact that, as explained by the Department in its reply, 50% of the posts have to be filled in by promotion from the Department while the remaining 50% of the posts are to be filled in by the direct recruits. The vacancy against which the petitioner sought to be appointed has been created by the retirement of a person who had been appointed by direct recruitment. It is for this reason that the Department advertised that post for direct recruits. In this view of the matter the petition is dismissed as being without any merit. Petition dismissed.