1989 PLP 469 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners against the acceptance of Service Appeal of respondent No 3, Malik Muhammad Aslam, by the Federal Service Tribunal. As stated by the learned counsel, the petitioners were inducted in service as Trained Graduate Teachers in 1976‑77, on ad hoc basis. The appointment way made ad hoc because there was a ban on regular appointment. In 1980. their appointments were regularised. In 1983, by an office order, the regularisation was given retrospective effect linking it with the original date of induction on ad hoc basis. This adversely affected the seniority of respondent No.3. He after the normal channel representation, filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal which having been allowed, leave to appeal has now been sought. Learned counsel has analysed the impugned judgment as follows:‑‑ (i) There are strong observations showing as if the regularisation itself in 1980 was illegal (ii) that retrospective effect could not at all have been given to the regularisation; (iii) that there were no vacancies available in 1976‑77 or thereafter till 1983 permitting retrospective effect to the regularisation; (iv) and/or that competent authority had not approved the regularisation whether with retrospective or prospective effect. Learned counsel has brought under challenge each one of the aforenoted aspects of the impugned judgment. However, after doing so, he after consulting his clients, has further stated that although they have no intention of now challenging the seniority of respondent No.3, already fixed, with reference to his date of promotion as Trained Graduate Teacher (as distinguished from the petitioners who are direct inductees, the said respondent is a promotee), they have been seriously prejudiced on the question of their seniority vis‑a‑vis all others who were appointed as Trained Graduate Teachers from 1976 to 1983. He has also seriously contested the observations of the Service Tribunal which of course prima facie seem to be without visible basis that no vacancies were available at the time of the induction of the petitioners. After hearing the learned counsel, we feel that these and other questions arising in this petition require examination. In particular, we would like to examine whether there is any prohibition in law in regularising ad hoc appointees with effect from their original date of induction subject, of course, to the existence of the vacancies and also satisfaction of other service conditions regarding merits etc. If not, whether, it would not be a case of general public importance to follow a uniform policy in such like cases leaving the discretion to the minimum so as to avoid clear injustice, favouritism or arbitrary decisions. The petitioners are directed to implead all those who might be affected in case their appeals are accepted. Leave to appeal accordingly is granted against respondents Nos.l and 2 and all the said interested persons to be impleaded within one month. It is, however, refused against respondent No.3 on the afore‑noted statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners. MA.K./M‑645/S Leave granted.