1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SAEED-UZ-ZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑The abovementioned two petitions are filed by the petitioners seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of Peshawar High Court, dated 26‑7‑1992, whereby their writ petitions bearing Nos. 58/90 and 27/90 were dismissed by the common judgment. The relevant facts in the cases are that the private respondents in the above petitions were recruited as Cooperative Officers, Grade‑16, vide Office Order, dated 13‑4‑1974, in the Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP) of the Government of N.‑W.F.P. They were given to understand, at the time of their selection, that their services will be regularised from the date of their initial appointment. However, later on, when IRDP was wound up, in June 1984, their services were transferred and placed at the disposal of Local Council Service (LCS), PUGF, in BPS‑16, as Planning Officers vide Notification of Government of N.W.F.P., Local Government Elections and Rural Development Department, dated 13‑6‑1984. In the notification, appointing the respondents as Planning Officers, it was mentioned that the terms and conditions of their service and seniority position in "combined seniority list" will be notified later on. By notification dated 15‑10‑1987 the Government of N: W.F.P. regularised the Adhoc appointments of several employees in PUGF (LCS) with effect from 2‑5‑1987. This notification issued by the Government of N.W.F.P. also contained the names of the private respondents. The private respondents being aggrieved by the above notification of the Government of N.W.F.P., dated 15‑10‑1987, filed Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 57/88 and 226/89 challenging the notification dated 15‑10‑1987. The two writ petitions, mentioned above, filed by the private respondents were accepted by the High Court and the terms and conditions of their services as well as their inter se seniority in the combined seniority list were directed to be notified at an early date, in accordance with the notification dated 13‑6‑1984. It was clarified that the notification dated 15‑10‑1987 would neither be a bar in regularisation of the petitioners services from the date of their appointments nor would it affect the terms and conditions of services of the petitioners to be notified. The aforesaid judgment of the Peshawar High Court was challenged before this Court but without any success. After the decision of this Court the contesting respondents have been shown senior to the petitioners in the combined seniority list prepared by the department. This combined seniority list was challenged by the petitioners before the Peshawar High Court on the ground that the appointments of respondents 3 to 15 in the Planning Branch of PUGF was collusive and that in any case the petitioners being confirmed officers in BPS‑16, since 1987, their rights could not be affected arbitrarily by introducing the private respondents over and above them from an earlier date in the combined seniority list. It was also contended by the petitioners before the Peshawar High Court that as the contesting respondents were appointed in Planning Department, their seniority should not have been combined with the officers serving in the Administration Department of PUGF. The above contentions of the petitioners were repelled by the learned Judges of Peshawar High Court while dismissing their writ petitions. In seeking leave to appeal the learned counsel for the petitioners has once again contended before us that as the contesting respondents were appointed as Planning Officers in the Planning Department, a separate seniority list should have been prepared by the department for them. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any substance in the contention of the petitioners. In the impugned order, the learned Judges of Peshawar High Court found that 13 posts of Planning Officers, B‑16, and 13 posts of Statistical Assistants, B‑11, were created vide Notification No. SO (LG‑1)4‑107/81 in the District Councils named therein. It is also specifically mentioned in the aforesaid notification that "the posts are to be borne on the PUGF and formed the part of Administration Branch of the service". It is not disputed that the contesting respondents were appointed against the 13 posts of Planning Officers, BPS‑16, mentioned in the above‑referred notification. In these circumstances, the learned Judges of Peshawar High Court rightly held that no exception could be taken to the combined seniority list prepared by the Department, which contained the names of petitioners and the private respondents herein, determining their seniority inter se. It is also not disputed before us that at the time the contesting respondents were absorbed in the service as B‑16 Officers, on 1‑7‑1984, the petitioners were holding the posts which were in BPS‑11 and that they were promoted in BPS‑16 much after 1‑7‑1984. It is, therefore, quite clear that even otherwise placing of the private respondents in combined seniority list over and above the petitioners was fully justified. No case for interference with the judgment of Peshawar High Court is made out. The petitions for leave to appeal are, accordingly, dismissed and leave is refused. AA./M‑1918/S Leave refused.