1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Promotion firmation To Class‑I Grade. Service.

1. Mr. Kifayatullah. 3‑4‑1969 1‑6‑1975

2. Mr. Dilasa Khan. 3‑4‑1969 1‑6‑1975

3. Mr. Muhammad Idress 26‑12‑1973 1‑6‑1975 Khan.

4. Mr. Maqbool‑ur‑Rchmap. 9‑2‑1975

5. Mr. Muhammad Rafiq. 18‑7‑1975 OFFICERS DRAWING PAY IN NPS‑18 IN LIEU OF THE FORMER SELECTION GRADE IN THE CADRE STRENGTH OF GRADE‑17 POSTS.

1. Mr. Ayub Khan 1‑4‑1971

7. The two cadres were integrated and a combined seniority list was issued with effect from 17‑4‑1979 in which the seniority position of the Grade 18 officers of the Education Department corrected upto 20‑12‑1978 was shown as under :‑ S. No. Name Position Date of Date of In Integ‑ Promotion Equation rated Se‑ To Selec‑ Of Selec nority tion Gra‑ tion Grade List de. To NPS‑18. 1 2 3 4 5

1. Mr. Mahmood Shah 10 1‑7‑1970 1‑3‑1972 Shaukat. 2 Mr. Sadullah Khan 1 l 1‑7‑1970 1‑3‑1972 3 Mr. Muhammad Ishaq 12 25‑8‑1970 1‑3‑1972 4 Mr. Muhammad Hassan Jan 13 1‑1‑1971 1‑3‑1972

5. Mr. Muhammad Aslam 14 1‑1‑1971 1‑3‑1972

6. Mr. Rafiq Hussain. 15 1‑1‑1971 1‑3‑1972

7. Mr. Ghulam Hussain 16 1‑1‑1971 1‑3‑1972 Balooch.

8. Mr. Jauhar Hassan. 17 1‑1‑1971 1‑3‑1972

9. Mr. Nowsher Khan. 18 1‑1‑1971 1‑3‑1972

10. Mr. Habibur Rehman. 19 4‑3‑1971 1‑3‑1972

11. Mr. Mufti Aziz Ahmed. 20 31‑3‑1971 1‑3‑1972

12. Mr. Rangeen Shah. 21 6‑4‑1971 1‑3‑1972

13. Mr. Said Hassan 22 8‑5‑1971 1‑3‑1972

14. Mr. Abdul Raziq. 23 31‑10‑1971 1‑3‑1972

15. Mr. Abdur Rauf. 24 1‑11‑1971 1‑3‑1972

16. Mr. Hamidullah Khan. 25 1‑11‑1971 1‑3‑1972

17. Mr. Abdur Raziq. 26 1‑11‑1971 1‑3‑1972

18. Mr. Fazli Rehman. 27 1‑11‑1971 1‑3‑1972

19. Mr. Abdur Rehman. 28 1‑11‑1971 1‑3‑1972

20. Mr. Abdul Qadus. 29 1‑11‑1971 1‑3‑1972

21. Mr. Muhammad Aslam. 30 1‑1‑1‑1971 1‑3‑1972

22. Mr. Ghulam Qadir. 31 1‑11‑1971 1‑3‑1972

23. Mr. Gauhar Rehman 32 4‑7‑1972 Abbasi.

24. Mr. Muhammad Idris 33 26‑12‑1973 Khan.

25. Mr. Maqbool‑ur‑ 34 6‑2‑1975 Rehman.

26. Mr. Muhammad Rafiq 35 1‑6‑1970 1‑3‑1972 Khan. 18‑7‑75

27. Mr. Muhammad Ayub. 36 1‑4‑1971 1‑3‑1972

8. In the light of the above information, the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties were heard. The counsel for the appellant stated that respondents Nos. 3 to 24 got selection grade between 1‑7‑1970 to 1‑11‑1971 whereas the appellant got selection grade on 1‑6‑1970. It was further mentioned that the selection grade of the appellant was equated to NPS‑18 with effect from 1‑3‑1972 whereas the respondents Nos. 25,26 and 27 were granted NPS‑18 much after 1‑3‑1972. Therefore, on the basis of continuous appointment in selection grade and NPS‑18 with effect from 1‑6‑1970, the appellant is senior to respondents Nos. 3 to

27. The counsel for the appellant quoted different authorities including rule 8, of the N.‑W.F.P. Civil Servants Act, 1973, in support of his contention. The counsel also mentioned that the integration order also lays down that joint seniority list shall be prepared with reference to the date of continuous appointment, substantive or otherwise, to a particular or comparable grade. The counsel alleged that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have deviated from the uniform policy of reckoning seniority of the appellant vis‑a‑vis respondents Nos. 3 to 27 from the date of selection grade and continuous appointment in that grade.

9. The Government Pleader, on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, stated that the appellant and respondents Nos. 26 and 27 shown at serial Nos. 33 and 34 of the integrated seniority list belong to the same cadre. These respondents were senior to the appellant in the cadre seniority list maintained prior to integration. This position could not be changed in view of the provision contained in the integration order It was further maintained by the Government Pleader that the appellant was drawing pay in N.P.S‑18 on the strength of former selection grade but he could not claim seniority over Messrs Muhammad Idrees and Maqboolur- Rehman appearing at serial Nos. 33 and 34 of the combined seniority list because they were holders of the Grade‑18 posts of Principal Government Comprehensive High Schools while the appellant was not in that position and,' therefore, on the merger, he was correctly placed junior to respondents Nos. 26 and 27 in the joint seniority list. Since these respondents are junior to respondent Nos. 3 to 24, therefore, they were also ranked senior to the appellant in accordance with the principles contained in the integration order.

10. The counsel for respondents Nos. 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17 and 19 to 27 stated that before merger of the comprehensive school cadre with general school cadre with effect from 16‑12‑78, separate seniority lists of officers of both the cadres were maintained by the Education Department and the appellant was junior to respondents Nos. 26 and 27 in the Seniority List of Grade‑18 Officers of the comprehensive school cadre. According to the Notification of merger, the inter‑se‑seniority of the members of the service belonging to the same cadre, as they held before the merger, were not to be altered in the joint seniority list. Accordingly the appellant who ranked junior to respondents Nos. 26 and 27 and these respondents were junior to respondents Nos. 3 to 24 on the basis of continuous appointment in Grade‑18, the appellant was assigned correct position in the integrated seniority list issued on 17‑4‑1979.

11. The counsel for the appellant, while counteracting the arguments of the counsel for respondents stated that Integration Order under reference, had contemplated, the amalgamation of the cadres and prepara tion of joint seniority list with reference to the date of continuous appointment to a particular or comparable grade, which meant that Grade‑18 was comparable to Grade‑

18. Similarly Selection Grade was comparable to Selection Grade. In the instant case, the appellant had been granted selection Grade with effect from 1‑6‑1970 which is a material date for the purpose of determination of seniority. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to be placed at serial Nos. 10 of the impugned seniority list. The counsel maintained that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have mis interpreted the Integration Order and wrongly fixed the seniority of the appellant vis‑a‑vis respondents.

12. We have given our anxious consideration to the points raised by the counsel for the parties and we have come to the understanding that (i) the appellant got selection grade on 1‑6‑1970 whereas respondents No. 3 to 27 got selection grade on different date after 1‑7‑1970. (ii) The parties have not disputed the spirit and contents of the Integration Order but they disagree over its meaning and interpretation. (iii) The appellant and respondents Nos. 26 and 27 were in the same cadre of Comprehensive High School but these respondents were senior to the appellant in the cadre maintained prior to integration. Considering these issues as undisputed /settled, we now proceed to examine merit in the arguments of the counsel for the parties.

13. The appellant belongs to the cadre of comprehensive Schools. The respondents Nos. 26 and 27 also belong to this cadre. These respondents were holding the posts of the Principal in Grade‑

18. The appellant was posted as subject specialist. The appellant was in N.P.S‑17 but he was given selection grade on the basis of Government decision to grant selection grade to 15 % posts in Grade‑

17. No doubt the appellant was enjoying the pay and status of Selection Grade from 1‑6‑1970 to 29‑2‑1972 and Grade‑18 thereafter but he was always shown and considered junior to respondents Nos. 26 and 27 and this position continued still the cadres were amalgamated. If the appellant was admittedly junior to respondents Nos. 26 and 27 before integration, how he could claim seniority over these respondents after integration. The respondents Nos. 3 to 24 were senior to respondents Nos. 25. 26 and 27 on the basis of continuous appointment in Selection Grade/Grade‑18, they had also to be shown senior to appellant on the basis of the simple principle of Geometry that if `A' is senior to `B' and `B' is senior to `C' then `A' is also senior to `C'.

14. The facts mentioned in the pre‑para. have led us to the considera tion of yet another facet, of the present appeal. The cadre seniority list of the Selection Grade/N.P.S‑18 officers of Comprehensive High Schools was issued on 31‑8‑1978. The appellant was shown and considered junior to respondents Nos. 26 and

27. If the appellant wanted to claim seniority on the basis of his continuous appointment in Selection Grade with effect from 1‑6‑1970, he should have challenged the cadre seniority list and if the said list had been corrected prior to integration of the two cadres, the appellant would have got rightful place in the Integrated Seniority List. The appellant instead of challenging the cadres seniority list, has called in question the Integrated Seniority List, Since the Integrated Seniority List was prepared on the basis of cadre seniority list keeping in. s view the three guiding principles spelled out in Integration Order, we fine that no deviation has been made from the set principles and, therefore, no relief can be granted to the appellant on the basis of the present appeal. If the appellant intends to challenge the cadre seniority list, he should prefer a separate appeal after exhausting departmental avenues in compliance with the provision contained in section 4 of N.‑W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974.

15. For the detailed reasons given above, the present appeal is dismissed with no orders to the cost. Appeal dismissed.