P L D 1973 Karachi 417 (PLP)

Osman Ghani, Assistant A. G. for Appellants. Jhamat Jethanand for Respondent. Date of hearing: 27th September 1972. This is a revision application against the order of the Additional District Judge, Hyderabad, granting temporary injunction in an appeal filed against the order of the Civil Judge. The respondent was appointed as Sub‑Inspector in the Co‑operative Department in Hyderabad Region, on 3‑5‑1968 and was promoted to the post of Inspector on 4‑8‑1965 along with others. Subsequently the officers junior to the respondent were re verted to the post of Sub‑Inspector with the result that they filed suit and were granted temporary injunction. That suit is still pending and the temporary injunction granted in that suit still holds the field. On 10‑3-1967 the respondent was also reverted and, therefore, he filed suit for declaration and injunction. Simultane ously he made an application for temporary injunction but it was dismissed. The respondent filed an appeal and it was allowed by the Additional District Judge and the temporary injunction was granted. Aggrieved by this the present revision application has been filed. The learned Additional District Judge pointed out the circum stances justifying the grant of temporary injunction. It was stated by him that the respondent was reverted without any show cause notice or without any inquiry in contravention of the constitutional provisions and Sind Civil Service Rules. He rejected the contention that the respondent was promoted in officiating capacity, for want of any documentary proof. The original order promoting the respondent did not disclose that he was promoted in officiating capacity. It was however, pleaded that a corregendum was issued subsequently, but no such document was produced and in the absence of that document the learned Additional District Judge was not inclined to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the department. He also referred to the Sind Civil Service Rules and an authority reported in P L D 1957 Kar. 54, laying down that wherein it was pro vided that the appointment of a civil servant was perma nent if not expressly provided otherwise. Consequently, a show -cause notice was necessary before a reversion could be ordered. It was further pointed out by him that the officers junior to him were still holding the post of Inspector in view of the temporary injunctions granted in their favour. He, therefore, found that the respondent had prima facie case. Mr. Usman Ghani who appeared for the applicant did not succeed in assailing the impugned order. So far there is nothing on record to show that the promotion of the respondent was in officiating capacity. In the absence of any documentary proof the inference is that the promotion was on permanent basis. That being so, the reversion could not be ordered without a show, cause notice and a proper inquiry. This was not done in the present case. Moreover, it would be anamolous that the juniors should continue to hold the post of Inspector while the respondent should be relegated to a subordinate position. The temporary injunction granted to the juniors was not challenged and it still holds the field. Mr. Usman Ghani placed reliance upon the authority in the case of Province of West Pakistan v. Malik Asghar Khan (1971 S C M R 569) wherein it vas laid down, that temporary injunction should not ordinarily be issued to Government Departments in respect of service matters unless there are compelling reasons to do so. Even this authority does not help of a applicant as there are compelling reasons in the present case to justify the issuance of temporary injunction and those compelling circumstances have already been pointed out in the preceding paragraph. In this connection reference may also be made to another authority of the Supreme Court in the case of Shahzada Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood Khan (P L D 1970 S C 139). Their Lordships, while dealing with revisional powers observed that the jurisdiction in revision under section 115 of the C. P. C. is limited and Is meant primarily for correcting errors by the Subordinate Courts in exercise of their jurisdiction and not those which are made in their discretion, unless the discretion is found to have been exercised fancifully or arbitrarily. Looking to the present circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the learned Additional District Judge did not exercise his discretion on sound principles of law. In the result, the revision application is dismissed. I, further order that this suit as well as the suits of the other officers be disposed of expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months as not much evidence is required in these suits and already five years have expired. K.B.A. Petition dismissed.