1998 PLP 628 (SCMR)

AJMAL MIAN, ACTG. C.J.‑‑‑By this common order, we intend to dispose of the above two petitions which are directed against a common ' judgment dated 17‑11‑1994 of 'the N.‑W:F.P. Services Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, passed in Appeal No. 349 of 1993 filed by the petitioner in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal N0.23‑P of 1995, dismissing the same.

2. The brief facts are that in 1966 B & R Department of the West Pakistan placed a requisition to the West Pakistan Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission, for filling up 85 posts of temporary Assistant Engineers. In March, 1967 the petitioners and others were appointed as Assistant Engineers (Civil) in Class‑11 (temporary) in the department purely on temporary basis. Their continuance in service beyond six months was subject to ' the approval of the Commission and their seniority was to be fixed m order of merit in which they were to be recommended by the Commission. Respondents Nos.3 to 12 qualified the examination of the Commission and were consequently appointed as Assistant Engineers on regular basis. The petitioners failed to qualify as such and, therefore, were not recommended for regular appointment by the Commission. They were placed in the surplus pool. There was a litigation which was brought up to this Court. It is not necessary to refer the same. It will suffice to observe that the petitioners have not obtained recommendations from the Commission till today. However, their services were regularized with retrospective effect i.e. 27‑3‑1967. The petitioners claimed seniority over the above respondents before the department. Then they filed the aforesaid appeal before the Tribunal which has been dismissed by it through the impugned judgment.

3. In support of the above petitions Mr. M. Sardar Khan, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioners, has urged that since the Government was competent to regularise the petitioners. Services with retrospective effect, the Tribunal erred in not allowing the appeal of the petitioners and not granting seniority to them over the aforesaid respondents. 4.The above contention is devoid of any force. Admittedly, above respondents Nos.3 to 12 qualified the examination held by the Commission and they were appointed on regular basis much before the regularization of the petitioners' services. The above regularisation could not have affected the seniority of the aforementioned respondents who were appointed after going through the examination conducted by the Commission, whereas the petitioners had not qualified the above examination and, therefore, they were placed in surplus pool. In our view, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is just and proper, The petitions have no merits. Leave is refused. A.A./M‑81/S Leave refused,