1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

2. Next in point is Notification dated 16‑7‑1990 (Annexure `D') which says that "consequent upon his replacement by the nominee of Federal Public Service Commission, Mr. Shahid Masood, Lecturer in Economics (Ad hoc) has relinquished the charge of the said post in F.G. Inter College, Okara Cantt. with effect from 31‑5‑1990 (F.N.). The notification said that his name has been struck off the strength of the said Institution with effect from the same date.

3. Again an offer of appointment as Lecturer in Economics was made to him through letter dated 12‑8‑1990 by the Directorate of Federal Government Educational Institutions, Rawalpindi, which stated, like the previous offer, that it will be on ad hoc basis for six months or till the availability of the FPSC nominee whichever is earlier. He was accordingly appointed as such on acceptance of the offer. .

4. Thereafter, his service was regularised by Notification dated 14‑6‑1990 which laid down that consequent upon his selection through FPSC, Mr. Shahid Masood who has been working on ad hoc basis as Lecturer in Economics in F.G. Degree College, Quetta Cantt. from 13‑8‑1990 to 2‑5‑1992 is appointed in the said College with effect from 3‑5‑1992 (F.N.) and he is allowed to earn increments for the period of his continuous service. The notification further said that he will be on probation for a period of one year with effect from 3‑5‑1992.

5. On 19‑5‑1992 he made a representation to the Director of the Institution (respondent No. 1). Its relevant portion is to the following effect: "On 31st May, 1990 my service was terminated on the arrival of F.P.S.C. nominee. I was again appointed as Lecturer in F.G. Degree College, Quetta Cantt. and I joined my service on 18‑8‑1990. Now after my recommendation from F.P.S.C., this gap of two months and seventeen days may please be regularised for the protection of my nine years service. Relevant, documents are ‑also attached for perusal pleas."

6. The prayer made in this representation for counting of previous service rendered by the appellant as Lecturer in Economics was rejected and he was informed of this fact by letter dated 6‑6‑1993. His appeal to the competent authority against the order met' the same fate and he was informed of this fact through letter dated 25‑9‑1993.

7. Prayer in the present appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973 is that his "service may be regularised by treating the period from 1‑6‑1990 to 17‑8‑1990 as leave admissible:?

8. We are of the view that the facts of the case hardly leave anything to be decided. The appellant was appointed as Lecturer in Economics only on ad hoc basis for a. period of six months or till the availability of FPSC nominee. He accepted this offer and was thus appointed as such on these terms and conditions. He was relieved of his duties on the availability of a nominee of the Commission with effect from 31‑5‑1990. He did not challenge the validity of this order which should be deemed to have become final for all intents and purposes. He was again appointed in the same capacity on acceptance of offer of appointment conveyed through letter dated 12‑8‑1990. This was clearly a fresh appointment and had nothing to do with his earlier appointment or service as Lecturer on ad hoc basis. Therefore, the Department were legally justified in disregarding his request for counting the intervening period as leave due to him. The subsequent appointment on 12‑8‑1990 had no connection with his previous service and it was rightly regularised from 13‑8‑1990 to 3‑8‑1992 after his selection by the Federal Public Service Commission.

9. It appears from his pleadings that the appellant has challenged the validity of termination of his ad hoc service as lecturer by notification dated 16‑7‑1990. There was nothing legally wrong in the order of the competent authority, in that he had himself agreed, on acceptance of the offer, that he may be relieved on the availability of the nominee of the FPSC. This aside, the appeal is not competent in so far as the legality or otherwise of the order of termination of his service is concerned. This is so because he never challenged the validity of notification dated 16‑7‑1990 saying that his name has been struck off the institution. Even in the representation of 19‑5‑1992, he does not appear to have said anything against it. Therefore, in. so far as the termination of service is concerned, the appeal is not competent under section 4(1)(a) of the Act. He did not fulfil the jurisdictional requirement in so far as that order is concerned. In this view of the matter, as already pointed out, the appeal is incompetent in so far as the validity or otherwise of the order of termination of service is concerned.

10. The result is that if that order stays in the field, the intervening period from 1‑6‑1990 till 12‑8‑1990 cannot be regularised and treated as leave of any kind and the department had every justification for disregarding the appellant's request.

11. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed as being without any substance. No order as to costs. H.B.T./903/Sr.F?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed