1978 PLP [C (PLC(CS))

1. Air. Ghulam Sarwar Tarin‑‑of the 1st Test already reported for duty.

2. Mr. M. Naseem Usmani.

3. Mr. Wahab Shah Rizvi.

4. Mr. Saeed Beg.

5. Mr. Mohammad Hassan.

6. Mr. Ghulam Hussain.

7. Mr. Mohammad Abdullah.

8. Mr. Mohammad Hussain (Sibi).

9. Mr. Abdul Razzaq.

10. Mr. Sher Mohammad. If you accept the offer, please report for duty in the Baluchistan Secretariat immediately."

6. It was made clear the selections held on tire two dates were con tinuing process that is why a consolidated list of the candidates was prepared determining their seniority as above, which was assigned to them' by the Selection Board. In pursuance of this order the selectees were posted in the Secretariat to different posts vide order dated 23rd July 1973 which is Annex ure 'J' of the appeal. In this order too the various appointees including the appellant have been assigned the same position of seniority as in Annexure 'F'.

7. It is alleged that on 8th July, 1970, respondent No. 2 made a representation to the Services Department saying that the two Selections on 27th June and 4th July, 1970 were two separate exercises, that respondent No. 2 having been selected on 27th June, 1970 shall be deemed senior to the appellant who was selected in the latter selection and that his seniority over the appellant should be accepted. This representation was not sent to the appellant until 5th June, 1972 i. e. after a lapse of one and half years. The appellant was asked to show cause why the representation of respondent No. 2, Mr. Mohammad Hassan should not be accepted. The appellant filed his reply where-after the Government passed the impugned order dated 31st January, 1973 which has been produced as an Annexure M and according to which not only respondent No. 2 who had made representation against the appellant, but respondent No. 2 and Mr. Mohammad Abdullah (since deceased) also were placed above the appellant in order of seniority. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed the present appeal on 10‑12‑1973 as already stated above.

8. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 only have filed objections to the appeal. Respondent No. 3, Mr. Ghulam Hussain did appear in consequence of a notice, but did not contest the appeal. Respondent No. 2 filed objections in writing but did not appear on the date of regular hearing. Only the learned Assistant Advocate General appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 in support of the objections filed for this respondent.

9. The respondents have relied on rule 9 (i) of the West Pakistan Secretariat Ministerial Service Rules, 1973 according to which seniority of an initial recruit is to be determined according to the order assigned by the appointing authority or the Selection Board provided that a person selected in an earlier selection shall he deemed senior to those selected in a latter selection. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have claimed that they were selected in the selection held on 27th/28th Jane, 1970 whereas the appellant was selected in the selection held on 4th July, 1970 and as such they are senior to the appellant.

10. The attention of the learned Assistant Advocate General was drawn to words in Annexure `F' of the Services Department dated 8th July, 1970 which has been reproduced above already and he was asked to say specifically whether the two selections were separate exercises or part of one of the same continuing exercise as stated in this Annexure. His reply was not specific. His submission was that if the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the two selections were separate exercises then the respondents Nos. 2 and 3, who were selected in the earlier selection, shall be senior to the appellant and that if the conclusion of the Tribunal is otherwise, that is, the same as stated in Annexure 'F' then the appellant shall be senior to the above respondents according to the seniority assigned to them by the Selection Board.

11. Services Department never withdrew their order dated 8th July, 1970 in which it has been stated categorically that nom, of the candidates could not appear on 27th June, 1973 to take the test due to circumstances beyond their control hence another date was fixed as 4th July, 1970 in continuation of the previous. The documents produced by the appellant also prove conclusively that he had applied for the test which was to be held on 27th June, 1970 and that he could not appear on this date because he was not relieved by the Deputy Commissioner. Several other candidates from the interior also could not appear on the above date for circumstances beyond their control that is why a fresh date was fixed for their convenience. Both tile selections were held in consequence of the same circular letter i. e. dated 15th May, 1970. The Commissioner. Quetta Division was informed teleg raphically by the Deputy Commissioner, Loralai on 26‑6‑1970 (Annexure D) that it was not possible to relieve the appellant for the test on 27th June, 1970. He therefore requested that another date may be fixed. In reply to this telegram, Commissioner, Quetta informed Deputy Commissioner, Loralai (vide Annexure 'E') that the appellant may be asked to appear for test and interview on 4th July, 11970. These documents read with Annexure F' leave no doubt as to the fact that the two interviews and tests held on 27th June, 1970 and 4th July, 1970 were part of the same exercise and that the list prepared as a result thereof in respect. If the candidates who were selected on the above two dates, shall be deemed to be a consolidated list as in corporated in Annexure 'F'.

12. We are therefore of the view that the seniority assigned to the various candidates in the letter of Services Department dated 8th July, 1970 was correct and could not have been varied as done in the year 1973. The order of 1973 (Annexure 'M') does not disclose the reasons which weighed with the Government in disturbing the order of seniority given by the Selection Board as in Annexure 'F'. Consequently the appeal is allowed, the order dated 31st January, 1973 of respondent No. I is set aside with the direction that the seniority of the appellant as stated in their letter dated 8th July, 1970 shall be restored. Appeal allowed.