1976 PLP 48 (SCMR)

ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑This petition seeks a review of our order dated the 28th of March 1975, whereby Civil Petition for Special. Leave to Appeal No. 223 of 1975 was dismissed. The facts need not be repeated here, except to say that we upheld cite view taken by the High Court that the tenure of four years of the petitioner s appointment as Chairman of the Board of intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, commenced with effect from the 1st of January 1971.i.e. the date on which he originally took over as officiating Chairman, and not with effect from the 16th of August 1971, on which date a notification was issued specifying the terms and conditions of his deputation to the Board. The petitioner has now prayed for a re‑hearing of the case, on the general ground that he was not able to present full arguments owing to not being a professional lawyer, as well as on several specific ground having bearing on the interpretation of the relevant provision of law and the two notifications containing the orders of his appointment and the terms and conditions of his deputation. After hearing the petitioner at some length we have come to the conclusion that no justification is made out for review of our previous order. Even though the petitioner is not a professional lawyer, yet he was, to the best of our recollection, able to present his case quite clears, and the fact that we did not agree with him was not due to any fault in his presentation. However, we have heard him once again, and have also perused the elaborate written arguments submitted by him, but unfortunately the result is the same. The appointment of the Chairman of the Board is made under section 14 of the West Pakistan (Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore), Ordinance, 1951. Subsection (1) contemplates a regular appoint ment of a whole time Chairman on terms and conditions to be determined by the Controlling Authority; subsection (2) prescribes a tenure of four years from the date of the notification of his appointment; and subsection (3) makes a provision for ad hoc appointment for carrying on the duties of the office of the Chairman when the said office is vacant temporarily or other wise, by reason of leave, illness or other cause for a period not exceeding one year. The main contention of the petitioner has throughout been that as in the original notification dated the 12th of December 1970 he was appointed only to officiate as Chairman of the Board, and no terms and conditions of service were prescribed, this appointment should de deemed to fall under subsection (3), and his regular appointment should commence from the 16th of August 1971, when the terms and conditions of his service were specified. ‑ He has elaborated this submission by reference to various decisions of this Court regarding the nature of an officiating appointment, and has even gone to the extent of contending that his appointment under the earlier notification was void, as the said notification was issued by the Governor and not by the Controlling Authority, and that there is no provision at all in section 14 of the Ordinance for an officiating appointment. He has next contended that the notification of the 16th of August 1971 could not operate retrospectively and accordingly we were in error in thinking that the regular appointment contemplated by this notification could take effect from the 1st of January 1971. The petitioner has taken pains to quote extracts from various decisions and legal text books in support of his submissions. We do not think it necessary to refer to the authorities cited by the petitioner, for the simple reason that we are satisfied that all the arguments raised by him are merely in the nature of technicalities, and do not touch the substance of his appointment as Chairman of the Board. The petitioner was serving as a Registrar of the Agricultural University, Lyalipur, then he was offered the appointment of Chairman of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore. He joined this appointment without insisting on the settlement of the terms and conditions of his service or objecting to the use of the word "officiating" in the notification of the 12th of December 1970. Nor did he take objection to the fact that the said notification had been issued by the Governor who did not describe himself as the Controlling Authority, which was the capacity in which he should have issued the notification. It is clear that the petitioner's initial appointment was not in the nature of normal promotion to him in his own institution, namely, the Agricultural University, Lyallpur. It was undoubtedly a fresh appointment to a new post and in an altogether different institution. The use of the word officiating, therefore, did not have any effect on the true nature of his appointment, which was to be governed by the provisions of section 14 of the Ordinance. As already stated, this section contemplates only to kinds of appointments viz. regular appointment for a period of four years and an ad hoc appointment for a period not exceeding one year. As the office of Chairman was already lying vacant, the petitioner was clearly appointed against a regular vacancy and he was allowed to complete the statutory term of four years before being called upon to vacate the office. The subsequent notification was merely in the nature of a supplement to the original notification. and slid not constitute a fresh appointment under subsection il) of section 14 of the Ordinance, The petitioner having enjoyed the full statutory term of four years, the High court was right in not giving effect to the technical pleas raised by him. For the foregoing reasons, we see no merit in this review petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.