1990SCMR 1182 (PLP)

ABDUL OADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑The petitioner No.l was appointed as an Assistant on ad hoc basis on 8‑3‑1979 and the petitioner No.2 was appointed on ad hoc basis on 20‑5‑1979. However, their appointments were regularised from the dates of their ad hoc appointments. The respondent No.l Muhammad Ijaz Rashid joined T&T Department on 13‑6‑1974 as L.D.C. He was promoted as U.D.C. with effect from 15‑8‑1974 and as an Assistant with effect from 30‑5‑1979 against the vacancy of departmental quota. The petitioners and respondent No.4 were shown seniors to the respondent No.l in the Seniority List. The respondent challenged the seniority of the petitioner and respondent No.4. His representation was rejected. He' then preferred an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal by means of order dated 23‑8‑1989 allowed his appeal and declared the petitioners and respondent No.4 junior to respondent No.l. Hence this petition for leave to appeal from the aforesaid judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal.

2. The learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the general principles of seniority for determining seniority of departmental promotees vis‑a vis direct recruits lay down that officers promoted to a higher grade in a particular year shall as a class be senior to those appointed by direct recruitment in the same year. The determination of seniority, therefore, is with reference to the appointment by direct recruitment and not on the basis of year to which the vacancies relate. Respondents Nos.3 to 5 were appointed in the year 1979 and their seniority shall be fixed with reference to that year. Being direct recruits they shall be placed junior to the appellant who was promoted in 1979.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they were appointees of quota of direct appointment for the years 1977 and 1978 whereas the respondent was promoted on the quota for promotion of departmental promotees for the year 1977. The advertisement was published in September, 1978 for the vacancies cf 1977 and 1978.but the interviews were held in 1979. The petitioners were appointed before the respondent No.1 against the vacancies arising out for the year 1977 and 1978, therefore, the principle laid down in para. C of the Establishment Division's Office Memorandum No.l/16/18‑D, dated 31‑12‑1970 does not apply to the petitioners" case. This Office Memorandum reads as hereunder:‑

. "Officers promoted to a higher grade in a continuous arrangement and as a regular measure in a particular year shall as a class be senior to those appointed by direct recruitment in the same year:"

4. The following points of law of public importance arise for determination in the present petition:‑

(i) Whether a Government servant appointed from direct quota on an earlier date can be declared junior to a Government servant appointed from a subsequent date from the quota of departmental promotees? (ii) Whether a Government servant appointed from direct quota arising out of vacancies for the year 1977‑78 on an earlier date can be declared junior to a Government servant appointed from a subsequent date against the quota of promotees for the year, 1979. Leave is granted.

5. The appeal to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file such additional documents as they may desire. AA./M‑1264/S Leave granted.