1992 S C M R 939

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Rustam S.Sidhwa and Saleem Akhtar, JJ
ANWAR-UL-HAQ---Petitioner
versus
THE DIRECTOR, COMMERCIAL AUDIT
and others---Respondents
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.104 of 1991, decided on 12th October, 1991.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Federal Services Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal
No.66-R of 1989 dated 28-2-1991).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---
----Art.212(3)---Civil servant ---Regularisation---Retrospectivity-----Civil servant having failed
to pass examination, he had accepted a lower post in terms of letter of appointment but
thereafter, on passing of departmental examination he was promoted---Civil servant's
appointment was regularised but same could not be with retrospective effect from the date of his
appointment.
Muhammad Munir Percha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate -on-Record
for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 12th October, 1991.
JUDGMENT
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Federal
Services Tribunal whereby appeal filed against the order of reversion of the petitioner as Senior
Auditor was dismissed.
2. In the initial recruitment examination held by the Auditor-General of Pakistan in January,
1981, the petitioner was selected for appointment as Apprentice Accountant in Pakistan Audit
Department. An offer for appointment was made by a letter dated 3-6-1981 containing terms and
conditions of the appointment. In terms of this letter he was required to undergo training in four
phases and to appear in monthly test. It was inter alia provided that in case he failed in passing
the F.P.O. or the departmental Accounts (G-16) Promotion Examination he would, subject to
availability of vacancies, be offered the job of an Auditor in Grade-7 in any office of the PAD. In
that case he was to be treated as a new recruit and his pay and seniority was to be determined
according to the normal rules. It was further provided as follows:-----
"In case you were immediately before your recruitment as Apprentice Accountant
employed in any office of the PAD and fail to qualify in any of the said examinations you
would revert to your position as at the time of your enrolment as an apprentice."
The offer made by this letter was accepted by the petitioner and he joined service as an
Apprentice Accountant. In 1982 the scheme was amended. The petitioner cleared Part-I
examination in October, 1983, but could not qualify in Part-II examination in the first two
chances allowed to him in December, 1983 and April 1984, In the third chance given in
September, 1984, he did not succeed. Accordingly the following order was passed:---
"Para. 161N Para. 7/N
Office Note at para.13 may kindly be perused. Mr. Anwarul Haq has not been able to
qualify the Acctt. Promotion Examination, as such his Apprenticeship stands terminated
w.e.f. 18-11-1984, the date on which result of APE was declared. He may be offered a
job of a Senior Auditor B-11 in this office. He will be finally one of the vacant posts
presently available in this office.
Submitted for orders please.
(Sd.) (Asstt. Audit. Officer),
(Circle Office),
21-11-1984,
He stands reverted w.e.f. 18-11-1984.
(Sd.) Director Commercial Audit,
22-11-1984."
On 9-12-1984 the petitioner was asked to give his option as to whether he intended to be posted
as Senior Auditor. On 14-1-1985 he gave his option to remain in service in the office of the
Director of Commercial Audit, Wah Cantt. as Senior Auditor (B-11). In September, 1985, the
petitioner passed Part-II examination of Accountant Promotion. He was promoted and appointed
to officiate as an Accountant (B-16) in the same office w.e.f. 3-111985 until further orders. The
petitioner submitted a representation to the Director-General, Commercial Audit on 13-12-1986
that the change in scheme had adversely affected him and his reversion may be re-considered
and the period may be regularised to count as Apprentice Accountant. Another representation
was also filed on 1-9-1987. The Auditor-General of Commercial Audit, Karachi, by letter dated
3-10-1987 rejected both the representations. The petitioner filed appeals which were rejected. He
challenged that order before the Federal Services Tribunal which dismissed the same by the
impugned order.
3. Mr. Muhammad Munir, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the regularisation
of the petitioner should be treated from the date of appointment as trainee. The contention on the
face of it cannot be accepted. The petitioner had failed to pass apprentice examination and in
terms of the letter of appointment he had accepted a lower post. Thereafter, when he qualified he
was promoted to officiate as Accountant (B-16) in the same office w.e.f. 3-11-1985. In these
circumstances when his appointment was regularised it could not be with retrospective effect
from the date of appointment as apprentice. In these circumstances the petition is dismissed.
AA./A-899/S Petition dismissed.