1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE FAROOQI (CI-IAIRMAN).--This appeal is directed against order of the Government, passed on 25-4-1984, whereby some acting Tehsildars were promoted as Tehsildars on the basis of the recommendations of Selection Board. The appellant preferred the review petition against this order, which was rejected on 8-1-1985. The appellant pleaded that he was approved as candidate for the post of Naib-Tehsildar on 8-3-1973. He had undergone the training and was awarded certificate on 1-6-1984. According to him, he was placed at S.No.7 of the list of the candidates, while respondents Nos. 2 to 7 were shown junior to him, in the candidature list. The appellant was appointed as Relief Inspector on 25-3-1975 and later on he got the appointment as Naib-Tchsildar. A tentative seniority list was prepared by the department, wherein his name was placed at S.No. 17 and the names of respondents Nos. 2 to 7 were placed earlier in that list. He submitted the objections, which had not been finalized and in due course the promotions have been made to the post of Tehsildar. The respondents Nos. 2 to 7 are junior to the appellant as per his contention. The appellant claimed that he should have been appointed as Naib Tehsildar on 25-3-1975, in the Revenue Department", but with mala fide intentions of the Revenue Commissioner, he recommended the case of the appellant, for appointment, in the Relief Staff, vide his Letter, No. 76, dated 3-3 1975 and got him adjusted as Relief Inspector. The appellant stated that through another letter, dated 3-3-1975, Salimullah Khan was adjusted in the Rural Development Programme. His seniority has been determined with reference to the date of appointment in that department i.e., 3-3-1975, whereas the appellant's seniority has not been determined, with effect from the date of appointment as Relief Inspector, although it has been determined with effect from 13-10-1975, when appointed as Naib-Tchsildar. It was also contended that he was not heard before the passing of order, dated 8-3-1985. The appellant further pleaded that he was met with discriminatory treatment, in the matter of seniority.

2. The respondent's counsel Mr. Abdul Rashed Abbasi raised the following objections:- (a) The appeal is time-barred. (b) No appeal was preferred before the departmental authority, within the prescribed time, therefore the appeal is not competent. (c) The appellant had no right of challenging the promotion of respondent No. 7 because he was promoted from the lower staff, while the appellant was a direct candidate. (d) An appeal in the matter of promotion on the basis of recommendation of Selection Board is not maintainable. (e) Chaudhry Muhammad Iqbal has not been impleaded as party. (f) The candidature list, relied upon by the appellant, is not authentic, nor it has any legal value.

3. On facts, it was pleaded that respondent No. 7 was approved as candidate in 1957 and even appointed as Naib Tehsildar on 11-1-1958, therefore, no attack can be launched against his seniority, or promotion. The respondent No. 7 was appointed as Nail)-Tehsildar on 5-5-1975, whereas the appellant as appointed as such, on .13-10-1975, therefore, the appellant is junior to the respondent No.

7. In the matter of respondent No. 5, it was pleaded that he was selected as a candidate for the post of Nail)-Tehsildar on -3-1973 and completed the training on 3-3-1974. The appellant is junior to the recommend No. 5, id vices of the tatter's appointment, having been made on 3-3-1975, earlier than the appellant. In the matter of respondent No. 3, again it was contended that the appellant is junior because he was appointed as Naib Tehsildar on f-3-1 975, almost 7 months earlier than the appellant.

4. Chaudhry Qurban Hussain respondent No. 4, who himself argued his case, stated that his candidature was approved on 22-2-1973, whereas the appellant was approved as candidate on.8-3-1975. The respondent was appointed as Relief Inspector on 11-6-1974, whereas the appellant was appointed as Relief Inspector on 25-3-1975. He was appointed as Nail) Tehsildar on 3-3-1975, while the appellant got the appointment as Naib Tehsildar on 13-10-1975. In view of the approval as candidate, the appointment as Relief Inspector and the appointment as Nail) Teltsildar, the appellant is junior to the respondent No. 4.

5. Sardar Rafiq Mahmood, Advocate for respondent No. 6 argued that respondent No. 6 was appointed as Nail)-Tehsildar on 18-3-1975, almost 7 months, earlier than the appellant, therefore, the respondent is in no way junior to the appellant. He also attacked the competency of appeal, as well as pleaded the limitation. It was further argued that no facts regarding the approval of candidature were brought to light by the appellant, in the-matter of respondent No. 6 therefore, no finding could be given on this point, in absence of the pleadings or any proof. Chaudhry Muhammad Hussain, Advocate for the respondents Nos. 1 and 8 was not present on the date, the case was argued but he had submitted the written statement, which has been considered by us. Mr. Nazir Shah appeared for respondents on behalf of Mr. Muhammad Hussain. He was also heard.

6. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It appears that the impugned order was passed on 25-4 1984. The copy of the review petition, appended with the memorandum of appeal, by the appellant shows that his review petition, submitted to the Government was dated 14-8-1984. The Government order, dated 8-1-1985 also indicates the date of review petition as 14-8-1984. The original order was passed on 25-4-1984. In view of the period, prescribed for a review petition, the petition submitted by the appellant to the Government was time-barred. We have already held in a number of cases on the basis of a host of case law from Pakistan that in case of failure of a civil servant, in seeking remedy before the departmental authority, within prescribed time, his appeal before the Tribunal becomes incompetent. For this reason, the appeal of the appellant before the Tribunal is not competent.

7. We have also observed that a tentative seniority list was circulated, by the Commissioner, vide No. 9155, dated 19-11-1979, wherein the names of respondents Nos. 2 to 7 namely; Salimullah, Fazal Rehman Qurban Hussain, Abdul Qayyum, Muhammad Sadiq Khan, and Gul Nawaz Khan have been respectively shown at S.Nos. 4, 5, G, 7, 8 and 11, whereas the name of the appellant stands at S.No.

17. The appellant submitted the objections to the seniority list, and copy of the objections has been placed on record, by him. Perusal of the objections shows that he had not disputed the seniority of the respondents Nos. 3 to 7, before the departmental authority. He disputed the seniority of the persons at Nos. 11 to

16. In paragraph 5, of the objections, it was contended by the appellant that Salimullah shown at S.No.4 of the seniority list was junior to him because he was junior as a candidate and that he had completed the training 6 months after the appellant. It was further stated that the appellant did not get information of the appointment of this candidate and prayed for the setting aside of order of respondent No. 2 in the objections submitted against the seniority. In view of the conduct of the appellant, in relation to respondents Nos. 3 to 7, he is estopped from calling in question the seniority as well as the promotion of respondents Nos. 3 to 7, before the Tribunal, at the appellate stage.

8. The appellant has given no facts and figures about the date of candidature of any of the respondents, therefore, his plea that he was approved for the post of Nail)-Tehsildar earlier than the respondents is not substantiated. The list of candidature appended with the grounds of appeal is not an authentic document. It purports to have been prepared by the Settlement Officer Kotli, who was not the competent authority, moreover, it is only a photo-stat copy. It does not indicate the date of the approval of any candidate. Simply, the serial number does not serve the purpose. On the other hand, the seniority numbers have been given, opposite to the names of the candidates. The appellant is shown as on No. 40, in the seniority, but for the reasons indicated hereinbefore, it carries no evidentiary value. The particulars of Ch. Qurban Hussain have been already indicated in an earlier paragraph of this judgment, which shows that the appellant cannot have precedence over him, on the score of candidature, the appointment as Relief Inspector or the appointment as Nail)-Tehsildar. The appellant made no attempt to establish his seniority, over the other respondents, at any stage than the submission of objections, against the seniority list. His grievance, against the appointment of any of the respondents as Nail)-Tehsildar cannot be considered at this stage. It is also useless to solicit before this Tribunal that the appointment of the appellant, in the relief staff made vide order, dated 25-3-1975 on the recommendations of the Commissioner, dated 3-3-1975 was mala fide. If he had any grievance, against the orders of his appointment, in the Relief staff, he should have sought the remedy at the appropriate stage. He could have also approached for remedy for his appointment, m the Revenue Department, instead of relief staff and could also question the appointments of those appointed in that department, on 3-3-1975. Raising these questions at this stage, being after thought does not make out a case in his favour. His case against Salimullah is not proved because no order of appointment or approval as candidate in respect of this officer was placed on record, nor the particulars were given, in the pleadings. The case against other- respondents is also not established, for the appellant's failure in furnishing the required particulars in the pleading, which could go to support his case. The surmises and conjectures do not prove the seniority.

9. An order has been placed on record to show that the post of Relief Inspector was equivalent to that of Naib-Tchsildar. This order purports to have been issued by the Relief Commissioner. The office of Relief Commissioner has no concern with the administration of Revenue Department and he has no authority to declare any post on his strength as equivalent to the post, in any other department. Even otherwise, any authority below, the level of Government is not competent to constitute the cadre or declare a post in one cadre as equivalent to a post in any other cadre for any purpose whatsoever. The service of one department or organization cannot be considered for the purpose of determination of seniority in any other department therefore, any order aimed at the achieving of the aforesaid purpose is also illegal and ultra vires if passed by any authority other than the Government.

10. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed, without any order as to the costs. A.A/67/Sr. A Appeal dismissed.