P L D 1966 (W (PLP)

SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑Talib Ali has brought this writ petition, challenging the order of the termination of his temporary services as a Ticket Collector, Grade I, in which capacity he had worked for five and a half years in 'the Pakistan Western Railway, on the main ground that the order amounts to his removal from service without affording an opportunity to him to show cause against his removal.

2. The facts are that the petitioner was recruited for appointment as a Ticket Collector in January 1958 but was kept on the waiting list, as all the seventeen candidates who had been duly selected in that year joined the training course and no vacancy occurred for the petitioner's absorption. Subsequently, on the 17th of March 1958, he applied for a temporary local appointment vide copy of his application (Annexure R/1) and on the 18th of December 1958, he was offered a temporary appointment on the specific conditions‑ (1) that his appointment was of a purely temporary nature pending regular selection likely to be held next; and (2) that his continued appointment in any other subsequent vacancy would not confer on him a right to claim retention in service on the score of continued temporary service. The petitioner's local appointment was thus subject to termination on the selected and trained candidates becoming available to fill the vacancies.

3. The next recruitment for Ticket Collectors, Grade I, was advertised in the year 1961. The petitioner represented that since he was on the waiting list for appointment and had put in two and half years of service as a locally appointed Ticket Collector, he may be exempted from appearing before the Selection Board and his appointment be regularised. His representation was rejected on which he adopted the normal process for, his selection and he was selected by the Board on the 14th of June 1961 and sent to the Walton Training School for training. It appears that for non‑deposit of the mess charges he was discharged from the Walton Training School along with some other students. They were however, allowed to resume their duty pending the final decision of their case. It was later decided that all the candidates who had been expelled from the Training School will have to take their chance in the next regular selection for the purpose of sending them again to the Training School. The petitioner thereafter appeared in the next selection which was held in June 1962, but failed to qualify. This was followed by another selection on the 18th of June 1963, wherein the petitioner wanted to take his chance but having in the meanwhile overstepped the maximum age‑limit of twenty‑four years (his date of birth being 11th of August 1935), he was asked to obtain relaxation of the upper age‑limit from the Vice‑Chairman (Personnel), Lahore. The petitioner moved an application in this behalf for relaxation of the rule which was a matter of discretion with the Vice‑Chairman, but his request was turned down. His temporary services were also dispensed with as from the 17th of August 1964.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that the petitioner's selection having validly taken place in the first instance in the year 1958 and as he continued in service thereafter, there was no need for his second or third selection and that the termination of his services after five and a half years without any show‑cause notice is illegal and arbitrary. It is obvious that in the year 1958 the petitioner was not at all selected as a Ticket Collector but was put on the waiting list for the year in question but which became purposeless as no vacancy occurred for recourse to the waiting list. The appointment which was offered to him and which he accepted thereafter was a temporary local appointment which was not made in pursuance of his formal selection for the post of Ticket Collector, Grade I, and he was clearly informed of the provisional and temporary nature of his service. His formal selection in 1961 also came to an end when he was discharged from the Walton Training School. In the third selection in the year 1963 for which he offered himself, he was subject to all the rules and qualifications for selection and if he had become over age by then, he could not claim the relaxation of age‑limit merely because he had been in the temporary employment of the Railway, nor for the reason that he had been previously selected for this job, although his selection had come to an end as he had failed to complete his training at the Walton Training School for his failure to deposit the mess charges. We feel that the petitioner can have no grievance whatsoever against the termina tion of his services as a locally appointed employee on a purely temporary basis. In our view, he is not entitled to any of the safeguards contained in Article 178 of the Constitution, including an opportunity for show cause against removal, assuming that he has been removed from service, as under Article 179 (2) of the Constitution temporary employees are no entitled to those safeguards. The mere fact that the petitioner had been appointed as a temporary hand before the enactment of the present Constitution does not advance his case, as Article 179 (2) is not subject to any limitations in its operative effect on temporary employees, who do not, therefore, have the constitutional protection such as may be claimed by the permanent employees in Government service under Article 234 of the Constitution which, subject to the other provisions of the Constitution and the law, guarantees to them the continuance of their service on the same terms and conditions, as were applicable to them before the enforcement of the Constitution. Article 179 is a special and a specific provision governing the temporary employees and would override any genera provision that may be found to be inconsistent with it. We have tried to state the constitutional position notwithstanding Note (i) below Rule 4 (4) of the Railway Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1961, which, inter alia, states that the dis charge of a person appointed in a temporary capacity otherwise than under a contract, in accordance with the general conditions of service applicable to temporary employment, does not amount to removal or dismissal within the meaning of this rule. We see no substance in this petition, which is dismissed. No order as to costs. K. B. A. Petition dismissed.