1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH (CHAIRMAN).‑‑Appellant A Muhammad Ashraf was a Cameraman at the G.H.Q. General Bran Rawalpindi. His services were terminated vide letter dated 20‑12‑1986 on the ground that he had been rendered surplus. He has preferred this appeal against that order.

2. The appellant was initially appointed as a Cameraman (Grade‑16) on ac hoc basis in the Inter Services Public Relations Directorate (ISPR Dte.), G.H.Q. under letter of appointment dated 12‑6‑1980. Subsequently, his appointment was regularised on recommendation by the Federal Public Service Commission it January, 1981. In May, 1983, he was deputed to serve in Saudi Arabia on secondment. He was repatriated from Saudi Arabia in September, 1983. He reported for duty at the G.H.Q. on 6‑11‑1986. He was informed on 20‑12‑1986 that his services were terminated under section 11 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 on having become surplus. He preferred departmental appeal on 28‑12‑1986. He was informed under letter dated 2‑3‑1987 that his services were terminated, as there was only one post of Cameraman and it was substantively held by one Mr. Riazuddin and his services had to be terminated. He preferred this appeal on 29‑3‑1987.

3. The respondents have resisted the appeal contending that the appellant was appointed as a Cameraman initially on ad hoc basis and, later, on temporary basis against the only post of a Cameraman in the Directorate substantively held by one Mr. Riazuddin and he became surplus on return of Mr. Riazuddin, who had gone on secondment, and his services were terminated under the provisions of section 11 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the appellant held the post of a Cameraman regularly, on having been selected by the Federal Public Service Commission and his services could not be terminated under the colourable exercise of powers under section 11 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. He has contended that provisions of section 11 were not attracted in the appellant's case as it was not a case of abolition or reduction of a post envisaged thereunder. According to him, the employment of the appellant with the respondent was an enforceable contract and could not be terminated arbitrarily. He has placed reliance on the cases reported in P L D 1962 Lah. 509, P L D 1971 S C 846 and 1982 S C M R 408.

5. On the other hank the learned counsel for the respondents has reiterated the same grounds advanced in written objections that the appellant's appointment as a Cameraman was on temporary basis as the post was substantively held by Mr. Riazuddin and the appellant's services were terminated under section 11 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 on return of Mr. Riazuddin,

6. The facts are not so much disputed. The question for determination whether the appellant's services were liable to termination under section 11 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, which is reproduced below:‑‑

11. Termination of service.‑‑(1) The service of a civil servant may be terminated without notice‑‑ (i) during the initial or extended period of his probation: Provided that, where such civil servant is appointed by promotion on probation or, as the case may be, is transferred from one service, cadre or post to another service, cadre or post, his service shall not be so terminated so long as he holds a lien against his former post in such service, cadre or post, as the case may be: (ii) on the expiry of the initial or extended period of his employment; or (iii) if the appointment is made ad hoc terminable on the appointment of a person on the recommendation of the selection authority, on the appointment of such person. (2) Where, on the abolition of a post or reduction in the number of posts in a cadre or service, the services of a civil servant are required to be terminated, the person whose services terminated shall ordinarily be the one who is the most junior in such cadre or service. (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1), but subject to the provisions of subsection (2), the service of a civil servant in temporary employment or appointed ad hoc shall be liable to termination on fourteen days' notice or pay in lieu thereof. The respondents have pressed in aid the provisions of subsection (3) which envisages termination of service on fourteen days' notice or pay in lieu thereof of a civil servant in temporary employment or on ad hoc appointment. The appellant's appointment at the initial stage was on ad hoc basis. His appointment was later made on regular basis on the recommendations by the Federal Public Service Commission. Following order was issued on 28‑1‑1981 of his appointment on regular basis:‑‑ Office of the CA.O. Subject:‑ Recruitment to the post of Cameraman in ISPR Dte Subject through Federal Public Service Commission. Continuation of this office No. 0104/794/A‑2b, dated 16th July, 1980. (1) The following appointment has been approved b the competent authority w.e.f 15th January, 1981:‑‑ " On the recommendations of Federal Pubic Service Commission, Mr. Agha Muhammad Ashraf, who was earlier appointed as Cameraman in ISPR Dte on an ad hoc basis, is appointed to that post on regular basis in that Dte against the appointment already held by him. (2) He will be on probation for a period of one year from the date of issue of these orders, extensible by order either before or after its termination by a further period not exceeding silt months provided that, if no order has been made by the day following the termination of either of the aforementioned probationary periods, the appointment shall be deem& to be hold until further orders. (3) A report with regard to his suitability or otherwise for retention in that grade will be forwarded to this office (CAO/A‑2b) ten days before the expiry of probationary period. Sd/‑ Chief Administrative Officer, (A.M. Zubairi) D.P.R. ;I It would appear that the appellant's appointment was made on regular basis and not on temporary basis. However, the respondents have made reference to the requisition made to the Federal Public Service Commission for nomination of a candidate for a temporary post of a Cameraman and urged that the appointment of the appellant was on temporary basis even after his appointment was recommended by the Commission. The concept of regular appointment has been described in section 2 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 that an appointment, whether by promotion or otherwise, shall be deemed to have been made on regular basis if it is made in the prescribed manner. Under section 10 of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, initial appointment to the All Pakistan services, the civil service of the Federation and posts in connection with the affairs of the Federation in Grades 16 to 22, except those under the Federal Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1978 do not fall within the purview of the Commission, shall be made on the basis of test and examination to be conducted by the Commission. The post the appellant was appointed to fell within the purview of the Commission and selection thereto was actually made by the Commission. The expression "regular basis" employed in the appointment order of the appellant, reproduced above, means the appointment other than that on ad hoc basis or on contract or on a temporary basis & for a specified period. Since the appointment of the appellant was for an indefinite period, his appointment could be termed as appointment on regular basis but not necessarily on substantive basis. That being the case, the appellant's services could be terminated in terms of the provisions of subsection (2) of section 11, reproduced above, on having become surplus on account of return of Mr. Riazuddin who held the post substantively.

7. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are not attracted in the appellant's case. In the case reported in P L D 1962 Lah. 509 (Col. K.M. Sana v. Government of West Pakistan), the question of transfer of the appellant therein was involved. In case cited as P L D 1971 S C 846 (Mukhtar Ahmad and others v. Government of West Pakistan) the question under consideration was that of appointment of certain candidates under the orders of the Governor in modification of recruitment rules. In the third case cited as 1982 S C M R 408 Mian Muhammad Afzal and others v. Government of the Punjab and others, the substantial question was of nature and seniority of ad hoc appointees.

8. For the reasons recorded above, the order of termination of the service of the appellant does not call for interference and the appeal is dismissed. It may, however, be observed that the appellant's case was of hardship and it deserved consideration for his absorption somewhere. AA./473/Sr. F Appeal dismissed.