2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

2. The position of this case as per memo. of appeal is that the appellant was appointed as Research Assistant (Grade‑16) in Potato Project (PL‑480) and posted under Principal Investigator and Horticulturist, Sindh Horticulture Institute, Mirpurkhas against a purely temporary post vide Office Order dated 18‑6‑1977.

3. Later on his selection through Sindh Service Public Commission the appellant alongwith other four officers were appointed as Assistant Research Officer (Plant Breeding) Grade‑17 on regular basis in the Directorate of Agricultural Research Institute Tando Jam vide Notification dated 26‑3‑1983.

4. In pursuance of the said Notification dated 26‑3-1983 the appellant was posted under Horticulturist, Sindh Horticulture Institute, Mirpurkhas in Potato Project vide Directorate of Agriculture Research, Sindh Agricultural Research Institute, Tando Jam vide Notification dated 20‑4‑1983 against an existing vacancy where he took over charge on the same date i.e. 20‑4‑1983 as Assistant Research Officer, Potato Breeding Scheme. He also held the assignment of Farm Manager, Horticultural Institute, Mirpukhas as per Office Order, dated 16‑7‑1984.

5. Agriculture, Food, Livestock and Fisheries Department vide Notification dated 8‑5‑1985 circulated final Seniority List of Officers BS‑17 in Horticulture Line (Supervisory/Non‑Supervisory) in Horticulture Line, Research Wing, Sindh as stood on 1‑1‑1985 showing the appellant at serial No.11 of the non‑supervisory officers. This final list was served on all officers of both cadres including M/s Muhammad Rafique Leshari, Muhammad Saleem Panhwar, Mumtaz Ali Shah and .Qurban Ali Jakhrani who did not object or challenged their assigned seniority position either through departmental authority or any other legal forum. So much so none of his colleagues challenged the nomenclature and the name of the appellant in Horticulture Line, Research Wing at the relevant time and hence according to appellant the same attained finality.

6. Subsequently on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee and with the approval of competent Authority the appellant alongwith Mr. Rafique Leshari and other colleagues were promotes in BS‑17 (Supervisory Cadre) on regular basis vide Notification dated 16‑4‑1987 in the Horticulture Line of the Agricultural Research Wing of the Department. There also none of the incumbents filed any objection or challenged promotion of appellant in the same line. Accordingly in pursuance of such Notification dated 16‑4‑1987 the appellant was posted as Instructor, Malhi Training Institute, Mirpurkhas against an existing vacancy of Assistant, Horticulturist Tropical Fruit where he assumed the charge on 7‑4‑1987.

7. The Agriculture Department circulated Seniority List of officers in BS‑17 (Supervisory /Non‑Supervisory) working in Horticulture Line in Sindh as on 31‑12‑1987 showing the appellant at Serial No.12 of the Supervisory Officers which was not objected and challenged whatsoever. The appellant was also recommended for Civil Award of Scientific Agricultural Research work in 1988 and had number of research publications/scientific reports in Horticulture Line of the Research Wing.

8. The Agriculture Department issued yet another Seniority List of officers in BS‑17 (Supervisory/None‑Supervisory) working in Horticulture Line as stood on 31‑12‑1988 whereby the appellant was listed at Serial. No. 10 of such list which was third in line and not objected or challenged as claimed by the appellant. The appellant was also allowed move‑over from BS‑17 to BS‑18 vide Government Notification dated 29‑5‑1991

9. The learned counsel for the appellant in his arguments reiterated that the appellant had all along been working in the Horticulture Line of Agricultural Research Wing, the fact which was clearly evident from his posting/promotion orders and the successive three final Seniority Lists which were not objected by anyone/his colleagues. He also pleaded for the implementation of the judgment of this Tribunal in Appeal No.82 of 1996 earlier tiled by the appellant re‑emphasising the consideration of the valuable experience gained/rendered by the appellant in Horticulture Line.

10. The learned A. A.‑G. contended that the foremost thing to be taken info consideration in this case was the fact that the appellant was selected by the Sindh Public Service Commission for the post of Assistant Research Officer in the "Plant Breeding" Line of the Agricultural Research Wing as was evident from the Notification dated 26‑3‑1993. Hence he could not claim his seniority in the "Horticulture" Line off the Agricultural Research Wing. He further added that it was wrong to assume that the position/status of the appellant was never challenged by anyone at any stage. On the contrary, after the promotion of the appellant to BS‑17 through Departmental Promotion Committee, a joint appeal was filed against such decision by Mr. Rafique Ahmed Lashari and other affected persons of Horticulture Line which was decided by the Competent Authority holding the further promotion of the appellant to BS‑17 in Horticulture Line as totally illegal and based on mis information etc. Hence the department in line with such decision/related facts ordered reversion back of the appellant to his substantive post of Assistant Research Officer, BS‑17 (Non‑Supervisory) Plant Breeding Line against which he ' was originally recruited through Sindh Public Service Commission.

11. After hearing the counsel for the parties at length we are of the view that the appellant for all the purposes and intents secured the right basically against the post of Assistant Research Officer (BS‑17) in the Plant Breeding Line of the Agricultural Research Wing of the Department and cannot lay his claim on mere experience gained against the out of line post i.e. Horticulture side of Agricultural Research Wing.

12. The appearance of the appellant's name in three consecutive Seniority Lists showing him in Horticulture Line has no legal effect. This is also not the case that seniority once circulated/ issued, if not agitated by any person attains finality. But this principle cannot be applied in this particular appeal as the very inclusion of the appellant in the Horticulture Line (Supervisory), which was altogether separate cadre for the purpose of seniority, was not tenable.

13. Moreover, the judgment in his earlier Appeal No.82 of 1996 does not bind the Department to provide the requested relief for his permanent inclusion in the Horticulture Line, but the case was remanded to the Department for consideration of his (appellant) long experience (18 years) in Horticulture Line. In fact the department in consideration of a joint appeal has reverted the appellant to his substantive post as per recommendation of Sindh Public Service Commission without affecting his scale of pay vide Notification dated 9‑7‑1998 which we hold good as the recommendations of the Commission are not transferable.

14. In view of the foregoing position we dismiss the instant appeal with no order as to costs.

15. Given under our hands and Seal of the Tribunal this 4th day of October, 2001 at Karachi. H.B.T./79/K(Sr.Trib) Appeal dismissed.