1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

All the consequential benefits like confirmation and grant of selection grade as Stenographer should accrue to Messrs Riazuddin Chaudhri and Maqboolur Rehman. Appeal No. 234(L) of 1975: From the facts of the case, it is evident that there were no rules of recruit ment in regard to the post of Stenographer. Recruitment Appointment to the posts of Stenographer was made by the appointing authority through various methods, e.g. nomination, selection, promotion, etc according to the exigencies of service. In the instant case, the appellant was informed by the Director, Audit and Accounts (Works) West Pakistan, Lahore vide No. Admn./154 dated 17‑7‑1964, as under: "You have been selected by the Comptroller and Auditor‑General as a Stenographer in the scale of 240‑435 with usual allowances. You are, therefore, directed to report for duty to the Comptroller and Auditor General's office immediately. Your recall from leave is optional. The unavailed leave will be cancel led on your resuming duty." It is apparent that the appointment was through the method of selection. The question of 'assignment' or the application of the office Memorandum No. 6/15/48, ME dated the 31st March 1951, would have arisen. If the appellant had continued as Stenographer in the present office throughout. Although the Office Order No. 1480, Estt./67‑64 dated 21‑ 7‑1964 provides for liability to reversion to the parent office and that the arrangement would be purely `temporary', it does not detract from the fact that the appointment was in the nature or `direct recruitment' by selection. During the course Of arguments, it was indicated by the learned counsel for the State that in case the appellant had not been appointed to the post of Stenographer in the office of the Auditor‑General, he would have ceased to hold the post of Stenographer in the parent officer; being on leave, he had already ceased to hold that post if this were so, technically he was on deputation to the office of the Auditor‑General from the post of a Steno typist but not that of a Stenographer. This however, was not the case. Having been treated as a direct appointee, he was given seniority from the date of recruitment and then promoted to the selection grade post of Stenographer. To my mind, the issue has been confused unnecessarily: by the expression `assigned'. It was open to the Department to revert him to the parent cadre, which option was not exercised. I, therefore, hold that the appellant is a "direct recruit' appointed through the method of nomination/selection in the absence of recruitmen rules and that he would take seniority among Stenographers from the date g of appointment, the order of `assignment' initially or from a subsequent date being a misnomer. He would rank senior to persons appointed there after viz. respondents Nos. 3‑

5. Appeal No. 304 (L)74‑‑Maybool‑ur‑Rehman v. Auditor‑General and 3 others: The petitioner, a lower Division Clerk in the office of the Comptroller Southern Area, was appointed on 29‑10‑1960 as a Stenotypist in the office of the Auditor‑General. The post of Stenotypist is not in the line of promotion of a lower Division Clerk in his parent office much less in the office of the Auditor General. The post. calls for special qualifications. In the absence of recruitment rules, appointment to the post could be made by nomination/selection, on the basis of a test, etc. That being the position, the initial appointment would determine entry into the cadre, the post of Stenographer, being in the line of promotion of a Steno typist. Having been appointed as a Stenotypist on 29‑10‑1960, he would take his seniority among stenotypists from the date of appointment as such and as Stenographer from the subsequent date of promotion, viz. 12‑11‑1962. There being no rules, there should be no question of any violation in regard to his promotion or seniority. The question of 'assignment' did not arise in fact even at the time of his initial appointment as Stenotypist. The question of assignment once again after promotion would not arise at all. As seniority in the post of Stenographer would count from 12‑11‑1962, the. appellant would rank senior to respondents Nos. 3‑

5. Orders accordingly.