1971 PLP [C (PLC(CS))

(2) Vacancies to be filled by initial recruitment shall be reserved for bona fide residents of :‑ (a) the region \where the vacancies occur, in the case of Inspectors; and (b) the Division where the vacancies occur, in the case of Sub‑Inspectors. (3) Vacancies to be filled by promotion under Sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of sub‑rule (1) shall be filled in the following manner :‑ (i) Ninety per cent of such vacancies shall be filled by selection on merit with due regard to seniority from among persons eligible for promotion to such vacancies in accordance with she provisions of sub‑rule (1); and (ii) the remaining ten per cent of such. of vacancies shall form a merit quota and shall be filled by selection on merit from among persons eligible for promotion to such vacancies in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (1), who‑ (a) have outstanding record; (b) are below thirty‑two years of age; and (c) possess sound health.: (4) Where a person with the qualifications specified in clause (if) of sub‑rule (?) is not available for appointment to a vacancy referred to in that clause, the vacancy shall be filled in the manner provided in ,clause (i) of sub‑rule (3)." The rule read with the Notification makes it plain that promotions from the rank of Sub‑Inspector for promotion to the rank of Excise Inspector were open to both Excise and Taxation Wings of the service, but we are told by Mr. Muhammad Ashraf, Assistant from the Board of Revenue, who has appeared on behalf of the Board of Revenue that in spite ‑of the rules, promotion o Excise Inspectors used to be made from Excise Sub‑Inspectors and of Taxation Inspectors from Taxation Sub‑Inspectors. We are surprised to learn that this practice is still prevalent, when Inspectors are now designated as Excise and Taxation Inspectors. In view of this practice; it has been conceded by him that the case of the appellant for promotion as Excise Inspector was only considered in relation to Excise Sub‑Inspectors and not Taxation Sub‑Inspectors. The appellant complains that his name should have been considered along with Taxation Sub‑Inspector, as well, for promotion as Excise and Taxation Inspector, ever since the Notification came into force and Excise and Taxation Service was merged, into one. The appellant has named Messrs Malik Maqbool Ahmed, Agha Muhammad Jameel, Ch. Riasat Ali, Farzand Ali, Hafiz Ameer‑ud‑Din, Sh. Abdul Majid and Muhammad Afzal as having been promoted without considering his case along with them. We find that Ameer‑ud‑Din was promoted on 9‑12‑1962, which is a date prior to the date of Notification as well as the notification of the 1966 rules. Since he was promoted when Excise and Taxation services were not amalgamated, we cannot hold that it was necessary that the case of the appellant should have been considered in juxtaposition to him for promotion as Taxation Inspector. Of the remaining, Malik Maqbool Ahmed and Sh. Abdul Majid have been given accelerated promotion as Excise Sub‑Inspectors. Since these were cases of accelerated promotion and the appellants service record was not found good enough to merit his accelerated promotion, we do not think that he can claim any seniority over them, because they have been promoted by selection on the basis of accelerated promotion, and the appellant could not compete with them. Muhammad Afzal was also an Excise Sub‑Inspector. He was promoted as Excise Inspector on 11‑1‑

66. We are told by Mr. Muhammad Ashraf that appellants name was considered along with Muhammad Afzal and others, but he has not been brought the relevant file. We have been shown some files of correspondence between the Director, Excise & Taxation and Public Service Commission, from which it i9 clear that the case of the appellant has been considered several tunes both in the context of accelerated and ordinary promotion along with others, but the appellant was not considered suitable. Under the circumstances, we consider it probable that his name was considered in juxtaposition to Muhammad Afzal when promoting him as Excise Inspector in the normal official course of business. There remain the cases of Ch. Riasat Ali, Farzand Ali, and Agha Muhammad Jameel, who were promoted as Excise Inspectors‑from Taxation Sub‑Inspectors. It is conceded that the case of the appellant was not considered along with them when promoting them. The question which remains for consideration is whether, they can be said to have superseded him in view of Explanation III of rule 9 of the 1966 Rules, which provide as under:-‑ "

9. Seniority.‑‑(1) The seniority inter se of the members of the service in the various grades thereof shall be determined‑ (a) in the case of members appointed by initial recruitment, in‑accordance with the order of merit assigned by the Divisional Recruitment Selection Board or the appointing authority as the case may be, provided that persons selected for the Service in an earlier selection shall rank senior to the persons selected in a later selection; and (b) in the case of members appointed otherwise with reference to the dates of their continuous appointment therein, provided that if the date of continuous appointment in the case of two or more members of the Service is the same, the older official; if not junior to the younger official or officials in the next below grade, shall rank senior to the younger official or officials. Explanation I.‑‑If a junior official in a lower grade is promoted to a higher grade temporarily in the public interest, even though continuing later permanently in the higher grade, it would not adversely affect the interest of his seniors in' the fixation of his seniority in the higher grade. Explanation II‑-If a junior official in a lower grade is promoted to a higher grade by superseding a senior official and subsequently that official is also promoted, the official promoted first shall rank senior to the official promoted subsequently. Explanation III‑A junior official appointed to a higher grade shall be deemed to have superseded a senior official only if both the junior and the senior officials were considered for the higher grade and the junior official was appointed in preference to the senior official. (2) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Now it is obvious from the above that in accordance with the requirements of the 1966 Rules, the cases of Excise as well as Taxation Sub‑Inspectors should have been considered when promoting as Excise and Taxation Inspectors Messrs Agha Muhammad Jamil, Ch. Riasat Ali and Farzand Ali, which was B not done. In the seniority list, which was drawn up the name the appellant did not appear. We direct that the case of the appellant be considered along with these three persons and hi seniority qua these persons be determined and shown in the proper place of seniority bearing rule 9 along with Explanation III mind. The appellant should be shown in his due place of seniority as is determined on consideration of their respective records of service. We cannot help mentioning‑that we are surprised to find that in spite of the 1966 Rules, and the Notification dated 13th July 1964; the Excise Sub‑Inspectors and Inspectors are being treated separate from Taxation Sub‑Inspectors and Inspectors, and kept in separate cadres, which should no longer be so. It is obvious that the two cadres have been merged and for the purposes of promotion the Excise and Taxation Sub‑Inspectors both have to be considered when promoting as Excise and Taxation Inspectors. We accept this appeal to the above extent, but leave the parties to bear their own costs.