1994SCMR1957 (PLP)

‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Seniority‑‑‑Posts filled in by promotion and direct recruitment‑‑‑Inter se seniority‑‑‑Appointment of both categories having been made on the same date, promotees would rank senior to direct recruits‑‑‑No violation of any rule had been made in making inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees‑‑‑Direct recruits could not be assigned seniority from a date prior to their appointment to the posts‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused to direct recruits in circumstances. Qazi M. Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Shakirullah Jan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th October, 1992. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the N.‑W.F.P. Service Tribunal, dated 24‑9‑1991.

2. The facts of the case are that in the year 1986, 44 posts of Assistants were available and according to the rules, 33 posts were to be filled in by promotion and 11 by direct recruitment. 33 posts of Assistant relating to direct quota were filled in the year 1986 while 11 posts reserved for direct recruitment were advertised on 14‑3‑1987. The petitioners are direct recruits. They appeared in the written test on 5‑4‑1987. They were selected by the Departmental Selection Committee and their orders of appointment were issued on 23‑8‑1987. During the year 1987, 57 posts of Assistant in the Departmental quota became available. The petitioners alongwith the promotees of 1987 were appointed on the same date i.e. 23‑8‑1987. As per rules the petitioners were placed juniors to the promotees. The petitioners being not satisfied with the order of seniority approached the Service Tribunal. The Service Tribunal dismissed their appeal. Hence the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as 11 posts for direct recruits related to the year 1986 were available, therefore, they would rank senior to the subsequent batch in which the respondents were promoted. According to the learned counsel, the direct selected are entitled tot the seniority over the promotees of the same year because they ought to have been selected and appointed on an earlier date in the vacancies existed for the year 1986. The learned counsel submitted that in order to give benefit to the promotees, the selection of direct recruits was not made in the year 1986. Be as it may, factual position is that the advertisement was made for the posts in the year 1987. The petitioners had appeared in the written test on 5‑4‑1987 without any protest. The appointment orders were issued on 23‑8‑1987. The promotees of 1987 batch would, therefore, rank senior to the petitioners in accordance with the rules. No violation of any rule has been made in making inter se seniority of the direct recruits and the promotees. The petitioners could not be q assigned seniority from a date prior to their appointment to the posts.

4. There is no force in this petition. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. AA./R‑2.30/5 Leave refused.