1972 PLP 590 (PLC)

Teacher; Agricultural Teacher; 1 Physical Training Supervisor. 233 It 140‑10‑190 105‑7‑140 District Inspector of Schools; Assistant District Inspector of Schools; Assistant District Inspector of __________________________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 __________________________________________________________________ Rs. Rs. Schools for physical Training ; Lecturer And Teacher (in Colleges) Head. Master Second Master english Mas Ter hence Master; Commercial Teachers; Agriculture Teacher Physical Training Supervisor; Demonst rator, Government College, Lahore. 317 III 110‑5‑135 80‑4‑ As above excepting 100 District Inspector of Schools and De. monstrator, Govern. Ment College, Lahore. 263 IV 80‑4‑100 65‑3‑80 do. 141 V 55‑3‑70 45‑2‑55 do.

7. Classical and Vernacular Section also comprised of the following five classes of posts: ______________________________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 Classical 10 I 140‑10‑190 105‑7‑ Oriental Teacher; and Vernacular. 140 Drawing Master, Manual Training Instructor; Vern. Teacher; Agricul‑ tural Teacher ; Physical Training Instructor; Assistant District Inspector of Schools ; Assis tant District Inspec tor of Schools, for physical training Clay Modeller. 40 II 110‑5‑135 80‑4‑100 do. 126 III 80‑4‑100 65‑3‑80 do. 406 IV 55‑3‑70 45‑2‑55 do. 352 V 35‑3‑50 30‑2‑40 do.

8. The table reproduced above will show that Senior English Teachers (which the Department has stated were also Second Masters), fell in the same class of posts in which for example Assistant Inspectors of Schools of the respective and relevant scales of pay fell. In other words, the A. D. Is., and S. E. Ts. failing within the same rate of pay belonged to one and the same class. The seniority of the members of the service in the various grades of service was to be determined from their respective date of confirmation with this clarification that if two or more members were confirmed in the same class of posts on the same date, their respective seniority was to be determined by the Director whose decision was to be final. This shows that each class, as depleted above, was a separate unit of service by issued and the constituents of that unit competed with one another in seniority. Examining in this way it will appear that A. D. Is., of Class I of Anglo Vernacular Section, within the rate of pay of Rs. 200‑10‑25 (old) Rs. 150‑8‑190 (new after 31‑12‑1930) and S. E. Ts., of the same class were one unit of service. Similarly, A. D. Is., of Anglo Vernacular Section with the rate of pay of Rs. 140‑10‑190 (old) 105‑4‑140 (revised after 31‑12‑1930) of the sate class i.e., class Il were in their own way another unit of service. This process o determining various classes (for which I have used the word units of service) can be carried forward and applied to the various other classes shown in Appendix "A", hereinbefore mentioned. If this basic foundation of the service structure is grasped then the solution of the problem herein arising becomes easy and it will be evident that if any S. E. T. (otherwise qualified) of one class (that is one unit) is appointed as an A. D. L, in the same class (unit), or vice versa, if an A. D. I. is appointed as an S. E. T. in the same class/unit, then both remain within the same unit or class or service and on principle since their basic grades of pay do nor undergo any change, no exception to such a shift of assignment can legitimately be taken. Lumping together of various kinds of posts into one unit or class of service, obviously implied that within that unit/class constituents of those posts would be easily inter‑changeable. Merely because one member of the unit/class is given a teaching assignment, another inspection duty and third the job off a physical training supervisor, it does not mean that they cease to remain members of the same unit or class of service. So long as they remain in the same section and in the same class, or unit, changes or shifts in their appointments or jobs do not mean breach of any service rule.

9. At this stage, I may refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the Province of West Pakistan v. Begum Waseem Intizar (Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1962), decided on 14‑5‑1963 with reference to Rules of 1937. That was a case of a Headmistress who was later on appointed as or transferred to the post of an Assistant Mistress. Both these posts fell within the same class/or unit of service as shown in Appendix "B" attached to 1937‑Rules which was similar to Appendix "A" reproduced above, with the only distinc tion that Appendix "A" dealt with Men's Branch whereas Schedule 'B' dealt with the Womens' Branch. The Supreme Court held that since both the posts of a Headmistress and that of an Assistant that Mistress fell in one and the same class‑(as this class has been explained by me above)‑‑carrying the same rate of pay, therefore, there was nothing wrong in the order of transfer impugned before them and that the same neither constituted a reduction in rank nor any violation of any terms or conditions of service was involved therein. Respectfully following the said declaration of law, I would hold that in the instant case as well since both these post belong to the same class/unit of service and carry the same rate of pay, the policy decision that incumbents of these posts can be interchanged, cannot be said to suffer from any defect in any respect.

10. I may here refer to another important constitutional enactment, namely section 8 of the Establishment of West Pakistan Act of 1955 which came into force on 14‑10‑1955. The said section reads as follows :‑ "8 (1) The Governor of West Pakistan may by order establish a Public Service Commission for the Province of West Pakistan to replace the Joint Public Service Commission for the Punjab and North‑West Frontier Province, the Public Service Commis sion for Sind, and any other Public Service Commission func tioning as such for any other specified territory. (2) As from the date of the establishment of the Public Service Commission for the Province of West Pakistan under subsection (1) of this section, the Chairman and members of the Joint Public Service Commission for the Punjab and North West Frontier Province and of the Public Service Commission for Sind shall become members of the Public Service Commis sion of the Province of West Pakistan: Provided that‑ (a) Nothing in this subsection shall extend the period of service of any person transferred under this subsection ; and (b) a person transferred under this subsection shall be employ ed under terms and conditions not less favourable than the terms and conditions on which he was employed immediately before the appointed day. (3) All persons in the service of the drown, serving in con nection with the affairs of the specified territories, and all persons holding civil posts under the Government of the State of Bahawalpur, or the State of Khairpur, or the Baluchistan States Union, shall, as from the appointed day, be deemed to be persons serving the Crown in connection with the affairs of the Province of West Pakistan on such terms and conditions as the Governor of the Province of West Pakistan may determine Provided that‑ (a) such terms and conditions shall not be less favourable than the terms and conditions admissible to them immediately before the 10th day of August 1955, and (b) notwithstanding the terms of his appointment in the specified territory, any such person may be required to serve in any post or capacity and in any part of West Pakistan." A perusal of proviso (b) of subsection (3) of section 8 as reproduced above would show, that a person could be required to serve in any post or capacity and this was notwithstanding his terms of appointment. The point which is thus being raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not only not supportable from any rules but stands totally demolished by the constitutional provision hereinbefore referred to. The said provision of law would further frustrate the case of pre‑One‑Unit employees though the position of post‑One‑Unit employee in this perspective will be attended to later on. The aforesaid liability of the pre -One‑Unit employees continued even after the 1962‑Conaicitution, Inasmuch as, the said Constitution carried forward all such obliga tions and liabilities. The principle that previous liability in general continued after 1962‑Constitution was not disputed before me by the learned counsel for petitioners. Re: Plea of Reduction in Rank

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the deci sion contained in the impugned policy letter, dated 16‑7‑1971, tantamounts to a decision to reduce the petitioners, in rank in a wholesale manner and could not have been brought about without issuing a show‑cause notice to his clients separately as required by Article 177(5) of the Late Constitution of 1962. In my opinion, the question of reduction in rank in the instant case does not arise and my reasons in this respect as also my answers to the various pleas advanced by the learned counsel in this respect are as follows :‑ (a) Reduction in rank primarily involves reduction to a lower post or reduction to a lower time scale or to a lower post in the time scale in which an employee was appointed. In the instant case, the post of an S. E. T. is not a lower post, inasmuch as, both the posts of an A. D. I. and S. E. T. fell within the same class/unit of service. They are in the same grade of pay and therefore, none of the aforesaid aspects of reduction in rank is involved here. The same was the view of the Supreme Court in the case of Province of West Pakistan v. Begum Waseem Intizar hereinbefore referred to with regard to the post involved therein, which too, carried the same grade of pay and fell within the same class/unit of service. The grades of pay as con tained in 1937‑Rules or 1962‑Rules, or even thereafter as shown in various annexes, filed by the private contesting respondents and the Government (which were not taken exception to by any party before me) established this thing beyond any doubt. (b) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that an A. D. I. is supposed to make tours for a particular number of days in month and if he is shifted from his pest then he will be deprived of travelling allowance and daily allowance (hereinafter called T. A. and D.A.) which according to him would lead to substantial cut in his remuneration and will this be a reduction in rank. The argument, to say with 'respect, is misconceived. Travelling Allowance and Daily Allowance are awarded to be person when he is to perform a journey in the public interest and the essence of these allowances, as laid down in Rule 1.17 of the West Pakistan Travelling Allowance Rules, 1969 is that they cannot be converted into a source of profit by a public servant concerned. T.A/D.A. is neither a profit nor a part or remuneration, as such, because it is not subjected to income‑tart or to profit tax and is not counted in the income of a civil servant as such. The argument raised purports to flour the situation to its extreme and cannot be endorsed. Similarly another argument was raised that while inspecting Lahore Corporation Schools, an A.D.I. In Lahore used to get some additional conveyance allowance and if he eras transferred from that post, there will take place loss in his remuneration. This plea also is not correct. Additional allowance on account of performing a special job of a local body would also make no difference, just as it was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Province of West Pakistan v. 3egum Waseem Intizar that additional pay of Rs. 50 as a Headmistress did not make the said post as a superior post or a post of a higher rank as these concepts are understood in service laws. (c) It was argued that in Article 242 (of the Late Constitution of 1962), "remuneration includes salary, allowances and pensions". It was submitted that when in Article 177(3) it was laid down that rules regarding the terms and conditions of service of persons serving in a civil capacity in the service of Pakistan shall be so framed as to ensure that the terms and con ditions of service of a person in so far as these terms and con ditions related to remuneration or age fixed for superannuation are not changed to his disadvantage: then its obvious effect was that the impugned policy decision of the Government which would have the effect of depriving the petitioners of T.A. and D.A. will be in violation of the constitutional guarantee here inbefore mentioned and will thus be void. The argument is not correct. T. A. and D. A. is paid to a civil servant in accordance with the specific rules on the subject which prescribe this rate in keeping with the pay of a person. Apart from the fact that T.A./D.A are not to be considered as sources of profit the rate and standard of T.A /D.A. will remain the same and no change in that respect will take place end as and when any journey on a public duty will be performed by the petitioners they will get T.A./D.A. according to the relevant rules. The fact that no journey in future will be performed by them or that chances of making journeys will be less is a separate concept by itself and no authority can compel the Government to always send a person on a journey regardless of the fact whether his post requires any journeys to be performed by him or not. In this way, it is not correct to say that the terms and conditions of service have undergone any adverse change against the petitioners vis‑a‑vis the subject in hand. (d) It was argued that a post of an A. D. I. was a superior and a prize post as regards its status and the nature of duties. On the other hand, the post of a Senior English Teacher, it was contended, was lower in these respects. Mr. Qasuri argued that in theory, professorship according to the notions of the Western Countries, was a scholarly, respectable and honourable job, but he submitted, that in our country this was not so and, here an Assistant District Inspector was considered to be a better post due to the supervisory, administrative and inspection duties which its incumbent had to perform. This approach according to me, is merely superficial and sentimental and if I can say so, in our country as well, respect of Professors too is not less. As a class, no doubt can be entertained, that they will not rank low in status; dignity and respect and it is, there fore, not possible for me to share the views of the learned counsel so as to call S. E. Ts., as belonging to a lower class as compared with A. D. Is. As regards the plea of inspection, suffice it to say, that merely because within the same/class/unitor grade of service, some set of employees are assigned the duties of inspection, it does not mean that they as such become "higher in rank" than other members of the same service. Nor will it make any difference if there take place interchanges of duties between members of the same service at intervals. Learned counsel argued that on various occasions of national exigencies A. D. Is., are often assigned extra‑respectable jobs and positions which probably they will be deprived to avail of if they are posted to do the teaching jobs. It is exactly to control such like false vanities that the Government has decided to enforce interchanging of posts. The point raised was such which Instead of being encouraged needed to be controlled and the impugned decision of the Government in this respect deserves a compliment in public interest rather than condemnation at the hands of a few whose way of thinking is different and who want to perpetuate their stay on one post or one type of post for ever. (e) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the previous history of the service indicated that an A.D.I was never posted as an S. E. T. except on reversion or as a penalty, though it was conceded that an S. E. T. could be appointed as an A. D. I. The later part of this argument, which has been underlined by me just to emphasise its implication, is sufficient by itself to determine half of the fate of the present writ peti tion. In the present writ petition exception has inter alia been taken to the eligibility of the S. E. Ts,, for being posted to the posts of A. D. Is., but if the argument advanced in the form hereinbefore mentioned is correct, then the decision of the Government to transfer or post S. E: Ts., as A. D. Is., is unex ceptionable even from the point of view of the previous service history of the case. Taking up the plea contained in the earlier portion of the sentence underlined' above, even that is not correct on factual plane. Learned Additional Advocate‑General has placed on record Annex. Additional A.G./S, which is a list showing that A. D. Is., were also being posted as S. E. Is. This list contains instances of cases ranging from 1961 to May 1971. In the list, there is added a note indicating that the instances quoted were not complete, inasmuch as, most of the record has been packed as a precautionary measure in view of the present border situation of the country. He has also placed on record Annex. Additional A.G./I which shows that various A. D. Is., were confirmed against the posts of S. E. Ts. It further shows that various A.D. Is. initially even applied for either of these posts, namely, A.D. Is. or r. E. Ts. Another document filed by him is Additional A.G./2, which indicates that A.D.Is./S. E. Ts., have a combined seniority list. The petitioners have themselves filed Annex. IV alongwith their additional grounds as contained in Civil Miscellaneous 4 of 1971 which is a copy of an order of the Director of Education, Lahore Region, Lahore, dated 16‑8‑1963, about various appointments. This document knocks at the bottom of the petitioners' case, inasmuch as, it contains following two notes' being notes (iii) and (iv) therein :‑ (iii) Conditions of their service and terms of their appointments are subject to revision 'in accordance with the orders to be passed by the Government from time to time; (iv) the above appointments have been made temporarily on ad hoc basis in the grade of Rs. 220/400 and the S.E. S.‑A. V. Section (hens Branch) Schools side and the incumbents are liable to be appointed/transferred against any post in the said grade throughout the Lahore Region." These notes will show that the A. D. Is., were liable to be transferred to any post in the same grade. In the face of this voluminous material, contentions on the basis of "previous history of the service", are incorrect and on merits even otherwise, go against the petitioners. (f) It was submitted by Mr. Qasuri that the post of an A.D.I. was always a promotion post. No material has been produced before me to substantiate this plea. Even otherwise It cannot be true because if the post of an A.D.I., falls within the same class/or unit of service, and carries the same pay‑scale as of an S. E. T., and both these classes have a common seniority, then the question of an A. D. I. being a promotion post does not arise. Here again it appears to me, that the petitioners are not representing the facts correctly and are confusing the matters unnecessarily. I have shown with reference to 1937‑Rules that in Anglo‑Vernacular Section, there were five classes/or Units of service. Class one was senior to class two, class two was senior to class three, class three was senior to class four and class four was senior to class five. In each of these classes, there were posts of A. D. Is., and teachers. If a teacher from a lower class e.g., class two was posted to a post in class one, in that case, it was obviously a case of promotion. Continuing the said example, if a teacher in class two was promoted as an A. D. I. in class one, then again in that sense it was a case of promotion. But within each class (for example class one), if duties or assignments changed between the members of the said class inter se, then it would not be a case of promotion. No instance contrary to what I have explained herein has either been brought to my notice or placed on record. The argument raised is just in a general form without caring to keep in view the fats relevant in this context and cannot be accepted. I have examined the case from the point of view of 1937‑Rules because Mr. Qasuri took up the stand that these rules were still in force and would govern all such employees who were recruited under these rules prior to the enforcement of 1962 Rules on 11‑10‑

62. If the case is to be examined from the point of view of 1962‑Rules, even then the position is not different because here again A. D. Is. and S. E. Ts. fall within same class i.e., unit of service i.e., class one and are in the same grades and scales of pay, with a common and combined seniority. (g) An argument was raised that the A. D. Is., used to write Annual Confidential Reports (hereinafter called the A. C. Re.) of the Senior English Teachers and, therefore, thy were higher in rank. No concrete instance and case has been brought to my notice to prove this assertion. It is to be noticed (As I was generally given to understand) that S. E. Ts., are invariably posted in high schools and the A. D. Is., had no connection whatsoever with High Schools. Sometime S. E. Ts, used to be posted as Headmasters of Middle Schools and with these Headmaters too the A. D. Is., had no connection vis‑a‑vis the subject under discussion. They might have had some relation with the other junior teachers of the Middle Schools or the Primary Schools, but never with S. E. Ts. The sole trumpcard of the petitioners in this connection was letter Annex. "X" dated 28‑10‑1970 filed with the additional grounds. This letter does not support their contention because it rather shows that the reports were to be written about the employees men tioned therein by the District Inspectors (and not the Assistant District Inspectors). Learned counsel referred to the endorse ment made by the District Inspector of Schools, Sahiwal, towards the back of this letter to show that while forwarding a copy thereof to the A. D. Is. of his district, he had directed the A. D. Is, "to collect immediately forms of the Confidential Reports, Character Rolls, resume of Annual Remarks and Index Forms according to their needs through their representa tives deputed for the purpose and arrange to return duly com pleted positively on or before 31‑12‑1970 in all cases." The endorsement further stated, "please note that the forms are to be completed correctly in a good and legible handwriting. Before completion of the forma, Office may please be consulted for your guidance to ensure correct completion of the form. The urgency and priority of the letter is rot to be ignored in any case." In my opinion, the endorsement is of no help to the petitioners for various reasons. Firstly, if read in context of the main letter itself, all it means is that A. D. Is., were to collect the pro formas of various forms etc., and were to complete them. The report, it is evident, was to be written by the District Inspector himself. Secondly, if the Government had required the District Inspectors to write the A. C. Rs. of the employees mentioned therein, the District Inspector of one District, namely. Sahiwal, could not in his own turn pass on that job or assignment to the A. D. Is. Thirdly, the Depart ment has vehemently denied this assertion of the petitioners and there is nothing before me to show the correctness of the petitioners' assertion. Capital is sought to be made of the supervision and control which A. C. Is., possessed over Junior Teachers of the Primary or Middle Schools, but no instance has been quoted to show that they had any dealings with High Schools where S. E. Ts., used to be posted. Towards the fag end of this argument, the petitioners placed on record another letter of the Director of Education dated 6‑8‑1971 to the address of the Inspector of Schools. Suffice it to say that it does not authorize A. D. Is. to write A. C. Rs. of S. E, Ts. The petitioners then placed on record two further documents one showing the reports for Inspection made on the work of Mr. M. Ghulam Ali B. Ed., in some Middle School on 24‑3‑IS65; 22‑3‑1965; 22.5‑1967 and 28‑2‑1968. This is only an Inspection Report and not A.C.R. The other document is about the work of one teacher Sh. Muhammad Ashraf. This again is inspection note and not an A. C. R. (h) Some minor contentions were also raised to show that the post of an A.D.I. was of a higher rank and it was submitted that they were in a way sub‑divisional officers and were not supposed to sit with Clerks. The teachers had no business to enter their offices except when called or when otherwise they had a job to do. The A.D. Is., had a peon or peons in their offices whereas S.E.Ts. did not possess such privileges. The A. D. Is., used to sanction casual leave of Primary School Teachers though in other schools, Heads of those schools could sanction such a leave for their staff. In my view, all these vanities are of an artificial nature." Senior English Teachers" was a Departmental code word which included English Masters, Science Masters and Second Masters as explained in para. 8 of the parawise comments of the Department. These teachers too had Orderlies and peons in their own schools. In their own way, they did also respon sible duties to perform. Some of them sanctioned casual leave of others and in their institutions also proper discipline to main tain decorum and distance was in vogue. To cap all, their grade of pay being the same, their seniority being joint, their class or unit of service being one, therefore, in my opinion, due to the artificial vanities hereinbefore advanced, the petitioners cannot be allowed to assume that they are higher in rank than the S.E.Ts. (i) Mr. Qasuri argued that A. D. Is., otherwise, possessed better educational training and administrative qualifications. According to him they pass through different channels, institu tions and colleges etc. (into the details of which he took me through by reading out various documents filed with the writ petition). In this way he submitted that they were of a higher rank. Status of a rank in service matters is not always consider ed from the point of view as to what are the minimum qualifica tions for entering into any particular service or post, or whether an incumbent of any of those posts possessed some higher or better degrees or training or other similar academic or other qualifications of that nature. In other words, a rank is not always judged from the point of view of the kinds of aspects which are being relied upon by the petitioners but for it, according to me, the criteria is altogether different, as has been touched upon here and there in the various parts of this judgment. (j) A genuine test of reduction in rank, according to me, loss in seniority. This is evident from the Government of L India decision No. (i) as given below rule 49 of the Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules. This decision is as old as 1936 and is contained in G. I. H. D. Memorandum No. F‑9/16/36 Ests. dated 4‑9‑1936. With reference to the said decision it is written as follows in the aforesaid rules :‑ "3(i) while reduction of seniority as an independent penalty is not provided for in classification rule 49 or rule 3 of the Subordinate Services Rules and cannot be impugned as such the loss of seniority in an order of reduction in rank to a lower post or time scale being inherent in the order of reduction cannot be avoided." This will show that a reduction in rank can lead to a loss in seniority also. Since in this case, as a result of the impugned policy decision, the seniority is not to be affected, it implies that the said decision is not of a reduction in rank vis‑a‑vis the petitioners. Re: Scope and authority of 1961‑Rules

12. Examining the case from the point of view of 1962‑Rules, the position as regards the rank, class/unit of service, and grades of pay is just the same. Rather rule 11 is relevant for the dis cussion herein involved, as it makes the members of the service liable to be transferred anywhere in West Pakistan and serve in any Department of Government or in any Local Authority or statutory body set up or established by Government. Presumably it was to escape this liability that Mr. Qasuri relied on 1937 Rules for prior 1962 employees. A perusal of the Appendix attached to these rules shows that "Assistant Inspectors of Schools, Assistant District Inspector of Schools, Senior English Teachers and Assistant Masters from one group. Their gradation list is always common. Their seniority is common and promotion within the aforesaid gradation list to the higher selection grade is made according to their position in the said list irrespective of the fact as to whether a person is holding the post of an Assistant District Inspector or a Senior English Teacher. In rule 12 of 1962 Rules, it is written that, "in all matters, not expressly provided for in these rules, members of the service shall be governed by such rules as have been or may hereafter be prescribed by Government and made applicable to them." This provision of law can fully cover and protect the impugned policy Decision, which as was verified by me from the original file produced in Court was issued under the tacit approval of the Governor of the Punjab, who according to the Constitution, is himself the rule‑making authority. That such like Policy/Decisions or Administrative Instructions can also be taken as "Rules", was laid down by the Supreme Court. In The Province of West Pakistan and another v. Ch. Din Muhammad and others (P L D 1964 S C 21), Government of West Pakistan and others v. Nasir M. Khan and M others (P L D 1965 S C 106) and also by High Court In Ali Jan and 5 others v. Com missioner, F. C. R., Quetta Division anti 7 others (P L D 1970 Quetta 93). In that view of the matter, the impugned decision is quite within the lawful authority of the Governor and no case is made out for interfering with the same under Article 98 of the late Constitution. The plea of Mr. Qasuri was that 1937‑Rules were still in vogue but I am of the view that they stand impliedly repealed by 1962‑Rules, though I have examined the arguments of the learned counsel separately under both the rules. Re: Plea of change of tenure and its effect

13. The next point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the impugned decision of the Governor tanta mounts to fixing the tenure of the post of an A.D.I. as four years inasmuch as, it lays down that A. D. Is , who have remained on such a post for the period hereinbefore mentioned should be transferred and posted as S. E. Ts. It was submitted that the tenure of the post which, for example was otherwise a permanent post could not have been changed in this manner so as to a periodic post. The contention has no force. The instructions of the Governor, do not convert permanent posts Into time‑post or periodic posts and all they say is that A. D. I. should not at a stretch be allowed to hold such an office for more than four years, and in public interest, after four years he should be put on some other job and In the post of an A. D. I., an S. E. T., other wise qualified on merits may also be posted. The Policy decision does not rule out the possibility of an A. D. I., after serving as an S. E. T., for sometime again being posted as an A.D.I. in public interest. The decision of the Government is to destroy monopolies over particular posts and is in public interest and welfare of the service to which no exception can be taken by means of a writ petition. It is to be remembered that service, according to the Constitution, is in the pleasure of the Governor, which means, that he has the plenary powers to organize or re organize the Department, make shifts and changes, formulate policies and do such things which may be necessary to streamline its efficiency and conduct. It is strange that the Authority in whose pleasure the petitioners held service and who has power to create or abolish posts, is being denied the right to Issue Instruc tions or rules regarding transfers and interchanges in members of the same class of service having same grades of pay and carrying a common seniority. Conduct of petitioners

14. Learned Additional Advocate‑General referred to the conduct of the petitioners. He submitted that A. D. Is. and S.E.Ts., formerly, had a common "Association" of which peti tioner No. 86 was the then President. The said joint Association Itself put in demands and when some of these have been materia lised, exception is now being taken to the same. He placed on record copies of various documents showing the joint demand, the proceedings of a Committee set up to go through these demands, Its recommendations and the motion of thanks on the part of the employees concerned when the demands were accepted. S. M. Altaf Hussain petitioner No. 86, as already indicated, was at that time President of the joint Association of the A. D. Is., and S. E. Ts. Later on, however, the A. D. Is., separated and started their own Association. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that having themselves sponsored the decision of the kind which is involved in this case, It did not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to challenge the same in this writ peti tion. In my opinion, the objection raised has a considerable force. I can take its due notice for the purpose of examining as to whether in these peculiar circumstances I should grant the discretionary relief to the petitioners under Article 98 of the Constitution or not. In my opinion, the petitioners do not deserve any aid of this Court in a matter which was brought into being through their own efforts; through their association and through their office‑bearers. Some Fundamental Defects

15. In my opinion, there are some other fundamental defects In the writ petition which are enumerated below :‑ (a) I was told at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are in all 384 A. D. Is. In the Punjab of which 249 are men and 135 are women. As against this, there are 9376 Senior English Teachers in the Punjab In the Secondary Schools and a good number in Primary Education Section and their total number roughly would be in the range often thousand or so. The burden of submission before me was that the impugned decision of the Government conferred an undeserving advantage on the S. E. Ts., as a whole and brought about a serious set‑back on the A. D. Is., as such. The petition is drafted in a general form claiming the relief which has beep reproduced earlier. In my opinion, a genera writ petition in this form was not maintainable, especially, when all the patties concerned that is remaining A. D. Is., and all the S. E. Ts., whose status, rights and claims, as a who, were being challenged, were not impleaded as parties. No doubt, some of the S. E. Ts., of their own filed an application for being heard and I did hear them, as hereinbefore pointed out, but that does not cure or remove the defect inherent in the maintainability of the writ petition as drafted. (b) When confronted with the above objection, learned counsel for the petitioners immediately placed a few transfer or posting orders :on the file and submitted that at least the A. D. Is., involved therein could pursue this writ petition. He also submitted that according to the Additional A. G.'s address in Court, orders about 67 A. D. Is., seemed to have been passed and, as such, the said A. D. Is., could carry on with this case. In my opinion, all this is no solution to come out of the difficulties in which the learned counsel for the petitioners found himself placed. In that eventuality, the form, shape, a title and relief will all be different and the present writ petition in its present form cannot overcome that defect. In that case, the concerned S. E. Ts., would definitely be necessary parties about which I was not told as to whether they were or were not already being represented before me. Even the names of all the A. D. Is., against whom transfer orders had been passed, were not disclosed to me by the petitioners or their learned counsel. (c) Another thing robe pointed out in this respect is that the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioners was very strange. He submitted that according to him the S. E. Ts. were not necessary parties and, therefore, he could pursue the present writ petition even without them. He argued that, however, if the Court considered that S. E. Ts. were necessary parties, then I should issue a general notice in the form of a proclamation inviting all S. E. Ts., of the province to take part in these proceedings if they felt so advised. He further submitted that on his part he had no objection to any S. E. T. or group of S. E. Ts., taking part in this case, addressing arguments or placing such material on record which they thought was relevant and necessary in their interest and it was for this reason, he said, that he had taken no exception at the Bar against the applicants in C. Miscellaneous No. 5 of 1971 and nor had he stopped them or their counsel from arguing their point of view and rather he had tried to meet such objections which they raised. All this will show that the petitioners are alive to the necessity of impleading all the S. E. Ts., but still they do not want to implead them at their own. Obviously, I do not want to do that which the petitioners themselves have not done and which they did not wish to do. It further means that the defect pointed out in this respect is being persisted. If that is so, the consequences must follow. I gathered an Impression from the arguments generally addressed by the learned counsel for the parties that as great number of them were such who were first teachers or were on teaching side or were S. E. Ts., and that they themselves having procured the posts of A. D. Is., now wanted that no further S. E. T. should follow them or the same line of appointment through which they passed. It was probably for this reason that learned counsel for the petitioners had to concede half of the case of the Government that the S. E. Ts., could be appointed as A.D. I., but submitted that an A.D.I. could not be posted as an S. E. T., the effect of which plea has already been pointed out by me in an earlier part of this judgment. (d) The writ petition suffers from multifariousness. In the panel of petitioner, it was conceded, there were certain A.D.Is. who were still temporary hands and had not been confirmed. The factual position as represented in para. 4 of the writ peti tion was also not correct and the same was pointed out in the corresponding paragraph of the written‑statement of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and also In paragraph 8 of the parawise comments. The list Annex. P/1, filed with the writ petition, did not disclose the compete particulars of each petitioner. Though learned counsel for the petitioners argued that A.D.Is. would fall under classes (i) to (iv) of Appendix A of 1937‑Rules, but when I asked as to whether he was in a position to state as to which individual petitioner fell within which particular class out of the four classes hereinbefore mentioned, he submitted that he could neither get this Information from the writ petition nor he possessed it with him at that moment. In my opinion in this state of affairs, when each Individual A. D. I., possessed his own history, record, credentials and service career, it is not possible to attend to all these aspects of all these petitioners in one joint writ petition of a general nature, especially, when Information on the present record at the moment was meagre and was lacking in material particulars. For illustration of my view point, I may refer to the cases of petitioners Nos. 112 and 113 on the basis of which some point‑ was sought to be made out in the writ petition but the Department has, however, pointed out that these petitioners were not S. E. Ts., but were Oriental Teachers of Bahawalpur State and in their cases, the Governor relaxed the Rules so as to allow them to continue as A. D. Is., in spite of the fact that they, according to 1962‑Rules, were not qualified to be appointed or continued as A. D. Is. This will of 1969, which wan later on repealed and replaced by the Punjab Civil Services (Appellate Tribunals) Ordinance of 1970, was challengable before the Tribunal hereinbefore mentioned. None; of the present petitioners challenged the formulation and maintenance of the seniority of A. D. Is., and S. E.Ts., in that form. This means that the petitioners did not have any objection to the jointness of the class, cadre or grade of service as shown therein. In this way, if jointness of cadres was not taken exception to in that respect, it is highly inconsistent to take exception to the same here. To me it appears that if cadre, class or grade of service is joint, it means it is joint and it cannot be said that it is not joint when it is sought to be implemented in practice and transfers within that class, cadre or grade are made. It is interesting to note that one M. Abdul Wahid Khan (an S. E. T.) feeling aggrieved from the place allocated to him in 1969 Seniority List, filed an appeal being Appeal No. 61/24 of 1971 before the Appellate Tribunal for Civil Services, Lahore. All the present petitioners were duly impleaded as respondents in that appeal (this assertion was not denied before me by the petitioners or their learned counsel). The Tribunal granted relief to the said S. E. Ts. None of the petitioners raised any objection in that Tribunal that S. E. Ts., constituted a different cadre/or grade of service and that he should not be mixed up with A. D. Is., or that his seniority should not be shown in joint seniority list. No objection was taken that the seniority of S.E.Ts., should be complied, prepared or maintained separately, inasmuch as, they constituted to separate class of service. The judgment of the Tribunal is dated 27‑9‑1971 and its copy alongwith its other attending documents was placed on record by the learned counsel for the applicants in Civil Miscellaneous No. 5 of 1971. He also refer, red to two other judgments and orders of the same Tribunals as reported in Allah Bakhsh and 13 others v. A. I. G. Police 1971 P L C (C. S. T.) 75 and Muhammad Sharif Butt v. Province of West Pakistan 1971 P L C (C. S. T.) 29, for the purpose that the said Tribunal has been deciding cases and giving decisions on the point of maintaining joint or separate cadres. In the first case, two establishments, namely, wireless and Teleprinters were merged together and joint seniority list was made. The Tribunal hold the merger as illegal and directed the preparation of seniority list on the basis of separate cadres. In the second case, jointness of cadres was claimed but it was refused. When confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that their clients had no objection to the respective cadre of A. D. Is., and S. E. Ts., being treated as joint or and the same, for seniority. If this is so, it is obvious that the plea of separation of cadres cannot be allowed to be raised in this writ petition. The decision of the Tribunal impleadly maintaining the jointness of cadres was final according to the law under which it was rendered and is binding on the petitioners.

16. I could have dismissed the writ petition on the material objections to which I have just referred but in order to avoid any remand, I have, however, au will be evident from my present judgment, attended to the various points on merits as well. This should not be considered that I have condoned the defects of which mention has been made by me in the maintainability of the writ petition in its present form.

17. The upshot of the above discussion is that the present writ petition has no merit. It is dismissed with costs both of the respondents as well as of the applicants in Civil Miscellaneous No.5 of 1971.