P L D 1956 (W (PLP)

CONSTANTINE, J.--‑The petitioner was appointed on 25th September 1950 as a technical probationer by the Controller of Broadcasting and after his training as a technical pro bationer he was appointed on 25th March 1951 as a technical assistant. On the 19th May 1953 a memorandum signed by A. Salman for Director General, stated that the petitioner's services were no longer required and were terminated with immediate effect and that he would be entitled to receive one month's pay in lieu of notice in accordance with the terms and conditions of his appointment. Admittedly no opportunity to show cause against the action of removing him from service was given to the petitioner. The respondents claim that. it was the condition of his service that his service could be terminated at any time by giving him one month's notice without cause assigned or one month's pay in lieu thereof. They rely upon the office memorandum, dated 11th August 1950 which begins as follows :‑ " With reference to his application Mr. Serajul Islam (Petitioner) is informed that he has' been selected for appointment as Technical Probationer in Radio 'Pakistan on the following terms and conditions:' Ten subparagraphs follow laying down these terms and conditions, of which one is to the effect that his services may be terminated, by one month's notice without cause assigned or one month's pay in lieu thereof. The petitioner contends that these terms and conditions apply to his service as a Technical Probationer and not to his service as a Technical Assistant. We agree with that contention, since the plain grammatical meaning of the memorandum is that these terms and conditions apply to his appointment as a Technical Probationer. There is nothing in the terms and conditions which shows that they were to apply to his future services. It is true that in paragraph (8) which reads : " He should clearly understand that his appointment and terms of service, including pay‑scale are subject to such changes as Govern ment of Pakistan may order from time to time ", and the word " pay‑scale " is more appropriate to his service as Technical Assistant than to his service as a Technical Pro bationer, for during the period of his training he was to be given a fixed pay of Rs. 100 while in paragraph 3 it was stated that on the successful completion of his training and if found suitable he will be appointed Technical Assistant in the scale of Rs. 175‑275, in a temporary capacity ". But we do not think that this use of the word "pay‑scale" is so inappropriate to describe his fixed pay of Rs. 100 a month, that we should over‑ride the grammatical construction of the memorandum. We, therefore, hold that the condition of one month's notice without cause assigned or one month's pay in lieu thereof was not applicable to his service as a Technical Assistant. We need not, therefore, consider the question whether if this paragraph had been applicable to him as a Technical Assistant, he would still have been entitled to the opportunity to spew cause within section 240 of the Government of India Act 1935. Mr. Shamsul Ghani had argued that though rules under section 241 of that Act need not be framed for such persons, yet the exemption did not apply to section 240 which required an opportunity to show cause. Mr. Ghani also requested an order directing restoration of the petitioner to service, but Halsbury while stating the principle that Mandamus will lie to compel restoration to office qualifies this by stating that the office must be public, and the instance given of offices to which restoration had been ordered, show, in our opinion, that the post of " Technical Assistant " was not a public office. We, therefore, direct that a writ should be issued ordering the respondent 6 to afford the petitioner an oppor tunity of showing cause against his removal from service. The petitioner is entitled to his costs of this petition from the respondent 1 or respondent

6. K. B. A. Writ issued.