P L D 1960 Supreme Court (Pak (PLP)

CORNELIUS, J.

'This appeal by special leave by an official of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, presently working as a confirmed Wool Grading Inspector, involves consideration of a single question which was expressed as follows in the order granting special leave to appeal :

"Whether, after the offer of a gazetted post had been made and accepted, there was still power in the Government to alter the terms of the service thus created by unilateral declaration that the post was to be treated as non-gazetted". The facts are simple. The Wool Grading Scheme was intro duced by the Government of Pakistan only in the year 1951, and in September of that year, applications were invited for a number of posts of Wool Grading inspectors by the Public Service Commission. The appellant made an application and after the usual procedure, was duly selected for one of the posts in question in the scale of Rs. 200-20-400. He received a letter from the Ministry informing him that he had been selected for the appointment, and declaring as follows :- " The post belongs to Gazetted Central Service Class II and the scale of pay attached to it, is subject to revision in the light of the decision that may be taken by the Government on the recommendations of the Pakistan Pay Commission. The post is at present sanctioned up to 29th February 1952, but is likely to continue thereafter". He was asked to make a reply not later than the 8th February 1952, It seems that be duly joined duty. In the meantime, the question whether the post should be gazetted or not was being examines: in the various ministries concerned. It appears that this was necessary because the minimum of the salary scale was Rs. 200, whereas for gazetted appointments the usual minimum is Rs.

250. It was stated at the Bar that the Ministry of Finance eventually refused to accept the recommendation that the post should he gazetted, and in consequence on the 7th April 1952, the appellant received a letter from his Ministry informing him that Government had decided that the post should be treated as Class II Non-Gazetted, but the other tees and conditions were to remain unaltered, The appellant protested by means of a representation and on the 28th June 1952, he was informed by the Special Officer in charge of the Wool Grading Scheme that Government were unable to reconsider their previous decision. Thereafter, the appellant and nine other persons, all employed in the Wool Grading Scheme, who had been affected by the order of the 7th April 1952, made a joint representation to the Government. It seems that no answer has been received to this representa tion by any of them so far. At some intermediate stage, the memorialists were informed that the delay was due to the case being examined "sympathetically". The Wool Grading Scheme being altogether novel, it was natural that in the first instance the service instituted for its implementation, consisting of graded posts in several cadres, and the posts themselves should be created on a temporary basis. It was not until 1956 that the Scheme was sanctioned on a permanent basis, and all the posts in the various cadres including those of Wool Grading Inspectors were made permanent.. The appellant had continued to serve in the post of Wool Grad ing Inspector up to that time and be was duly confirmed in that post. In December 1957, he filed his petition for a writ which was dismissed by the High Court. In the main, the contention before the High Court was that by virtue of the order of 7th April 1952, the appellant had suffered a reduction in rank, and that this had been done without giving him an opportunity of showing cause as required by section 240 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which was subsequently replaced by Article 181 of the Constitution of 1956. The judgment of the High Court proceeds on the basis that the "petitioners had never made it their grievance that the Government had not given them a show- cause notice" and that it was "too late in the day after over six years to make a grievance of the fact that constitutional safe guard has been violated." We are clearly of the opinion that the case does not fall to be considered in contract. In the circumstances, we do not sees that the appellant can claim any legal right to a gazetted post, or to have the post which he occupies made into a gazetted one, by virtue of the offer and acceptance of January 1952. The post as it then stood and which he accepted, was a temporary post, and even if it be supposed that at the time when he accepted it, it was gazetted post, that condition ceased to be of effect after the 29th February 1952, when fresh orders became necessary for its continuance. It appears that the post was continued, and in the course of the next period of extension, the decision was taken that it was to be treated as a non-gazetted post. Mr. M. Nasiruddin appearing for the appellant was unable to satisfy us that by the post having been altered to a non-gazetted post, the appellant had suffered any concrete loss or disadvantage. It appears that if he had held the post for five years as a gazetted officer, he would be entitled to some form of promotion, but the argument is of no avail since the appellant had accepted in the first instances a post which was to terminate under the sanctions within a period of approximately a month from the date when he joined it. It seems that what is mostly injured, in the case of the appellant, is his notion of the prestige attaching to the occupation of a gazetted post. There can be no legal right vested in the appellant to the enjoyment of mere prestige. The notion of reduction in rank is entirely irrelevant to the case. As we see it this was a case of the introduction of a new scheme by the Government for the implementation of which a number of posts were created, and since for the first few years the scheme would be experimental, those posts were created on a temporary basis. The introduction of the scheme and the creation of the necessary posts was within the plenary power of the Government. We do not see that the actions of Government in this respect were in any way fettered by any statutory or other considerations. As an aspect of this complete power and discretion, the Government must be allowed to possess, at any rate, up to the time when the scheme was confirmed and the posts were made permanent, the power of deciding on the basis of experience and estimation of requirements, what should be the terms and the conditions of service as well as the status of each of the new posts. The decision that the posts should be non-gazetted falls clearly within the scope of this extensive power and no Court can claim to control Government's action in these respects. The petition was rightly dismissed by the High Court, and we' dismiss this appeal with costs. A. H. Appeal dismissed.