1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).‑All the six appeals are identical involving common questions of fads and law, therefore, we propose to dispose of these appeals by this single judgment.

2. The relevant facts of these appeals are that the appellants were appointed in the year 1994 under WAPDA by competent Authority in different capacities as Junior Clerks/Bill Distributors/LS‑II, etc. by separate orders on the basis of WAPDA employees sons quota. Subsequently, the respondent WAPDA relying on para. (2) of appointment orders, the services of all the appellants were terminated during the probationary period by separate orders dated 30‑3‑1994 and 28‑4‑1994 and 13‑7‑1994 and they were relieved of their duties. Being aggrieved, they filed departmental appeals which were not responded to and finally they have come before this Tribunal by way of these appeals under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the: appellants submitted that all the appellants were regularly appointed on the basis of employees sons quota and as such their services could not be terminated by invoking the provisions of para. (2) of their appointment orders during the probationary period and impugned orders are illegal.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent WAPDA argued that no doubt the appellants were appointed on the basis of employees son's quota, but on verification it was revealed that their appointments were made over and above the quota of the parents and, therefore, their services were dispensed with under the order of the competent Authority during the probationary period for which no notice was required.

5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is an admitted position that appellants were appointed in WAPDA on the basis of their parent?s quota, under clause (v) of office order dated 23‑6‑1982, and is reproduced herein below: "In continuation of Office Order NOAD (E.II.D)/07676/17009‑698, dated 25‑4‑1981, the Authority is pleased to decide that WAPDA Employees Children will be recruited against the quota reserved for them, in the following orders of merit: (i) Children of the employees who have died in an accident while on duty. (ii) Children of employees who have been incapacitated in accident while on duty. (iii) Children of employees who have died or incapacitated due to some other reason not connected with their duty. (iv) Children of retired employees. (v) Children of employees in service whose child has not been recruited before.

2. For the rest the seniority of the employees will be considered while giving job to the sons of employees and the senior employee's son will be given preference over the junior, employees son if their qualifications are the same.

3. The Authority has also decided that the reserved quota does not bar the employment of employees' sons against the balance of direct quota and that employee's son be given preference over the direct applicants in the balance of direct quota provided that they fulfil all requirements and are in no way inferior to other candidates." According to the appellants, their parents are still working in the service of WAPDA and according to the office order referred to above, the sons of the deceased employees of WAPDA are to be given preference and priority over and above the other persons. On verification, it transpired that the appointment of the appellants were made in excess of their quota, thus usurping the quota of other categories of merit and the entire case was reviewed and all the appellants were still on probation, the competent Authority by invoking the provisions of para. (2) of their appointment orders, terminated the services of the appellants, and rightly so, because it is a settled law that any appointment made in excess of the reserved quota cannot be termed as regular, but such appointments are adhoc and while terminating such appointments, no notice is required. Therefore, we are of the view that since all the appellants were appointed in excess of their quota, as sons of WAPDA employees, the respondent WAPDA, on detection of this fact, was within its discretion to invoke the provisions of para. (2) of their appointment orders and terminated their services without notice during the probationary period and there is no illegality. Consequently, all the appeals having no merit are dismissed with costs. H.B.T./1051/Sr.F???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed.