1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Ch. Muhammad Farooq for Respondent No. 1 M.M. Saeed Baig for Respondent No.

3. Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1991. The petitioners by means of this Constitutional petition assailed the order of the Appellate Committee constituted by respondent No. 1 whereby they were shown in the seniority list junior to Taj Mir respondent No. 3.

2. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that they were confirmed with effect from 1‑7‑1965 as Senior Clerks whereas the respondent was confirmed as such on 1‑7‑1970, he, therefore, became junior to them. On his representation the seniority list was, however, disturbed vide order dated 11‑8‑1984 of the Seniority Committee. He was granted pro forma promotion with effect from 31‑10‑1963 and confirmed on 1‑7‑1965, without adversely affecting the seniority position of the petitioners. He challenged that order in appeal and on 7‑4‑1985 the Appellate Committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor in the purported exercise of powers under section 15(3) of the University of the Punjab Act, Y973 decided that the respondent No. 3 be shown in the seniority list at his due place viz. above the petitioners.

3. It was submitted that respondent No. 3 was junior to petitioners Nos.l, 3 and 4 as Junior Clerk, as his case for promotion was deferred on account of certain adverse remarks in his annual confidential reports. The petitioners were promoted earlier than him and confirmed as Senior Clerks with effect from 1‑7‑1965. He could not have Been given precedence over the petitioners while determining inter se seniority. It was lastly contended that the Vice -Chancellor could not 'constitute Appellate Committee in exercise of powers under section 15(3) of the University of the Punjab Act, 1973 and the impugned decision made by the Appellate Committee suffers for lack of jurisdiction.

4. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 controverted the contentions raised by the petitioners. It was argued that in the absence of the Syndicate the Vice‑Chancellor of the University is empowered under section 15(3) of the aforementioned Act to constitute the Appellate Committee. It was also submitted that the respondent No. 3 was senior to petitioners Nos. 1, 3 and 4 as junior clerk; his case for promotion was deferred but no adverse remarks were conveyed to him and, therefore, the same were of no legal effect. It was submitted that the petitioners were appointed to officiate against higher posts but while determining their seniority in accordance with the provisions of para. 5(b) of the Calendar of the University of the Punjab for the year 1977‑78, Volume 1, at page 392, relating to the terms and conditions of service of the employees, it is mentioned that the permanent members of the service appointed to officiate against higher posts, their relative seniority shall be fixed in accordance with their position on the permanent list of the cadre, namely, the person who was senior as a Junior Clerk shall be senior as Senior Clerk to those who were junior to him on the permanent list of Junior Clerks. The Appellate Committee validly constituted had correctly applied the above provisions of law. The non‑availability of the service record of respondent No.3 could not be read against him for the purpose of determining his seniority as he was certainly senior to the respondent No. 3 but he did not agitate his seniority and he had already retired.

5. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on the file. The perusal of section 15(3) of the University of the Punjab Act, 1973 shows that when Syndicate is not in existence the Vice‑Chancellor is competent to appoint Committees to hear and dispose of pending appeals. Undoubtedly, Taj Mir respondent was senior to petitioners Nos. 1, 3 and 4 as Junior Clerk. He was rightly held senior than the abovementioned petitioners in view of the provisions of Para. 5(b) of the Calendar of the University of the Punjab for the year 1977‑

78. The petitioner No. 2 did not agitate the matter and cannot at this stage be permitted to raise the question for the first time. Moreover, he did not appear and reportedly had retired. May be he is no more interested in the matter of seniority.

6. In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. AA./A‑587/L Petition dismissed