1989 PLP 1986 (SCMR)

USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 31‑3‑1988, whereby his appeal against the seniority of respondents No.3 & 4 was rejected. The question involved in this case is whether an appeal was competent before the Tribunal under section 4 of the Federal Service Tribunal Act, 1974. The admitted position is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Stenotyp1st on 22‑11‑1974 on a trial basis for a period of three months. Eight others including respondents Nos.3 and 4 were also appointed on the same basis after that on different dates. On qualifying the shorthand and typing test prescribed for the purpose they were appointed on regular basis as Stenotyp1st w.e.f. 16‑12‑1980. After resolving their seniority dispute the petitioner was placed senior to respondents Nos. 3 and

4. The said respondents were appointed as Stenographers on 17‑11‑1980 and 27‑11‑1980 respectively against reserved posts for direct recruitment whereas the appellant was promoted as Stenographer on 1‑1‑1984. The main question on which their inter se seniority as fixed by the department is contested is that respondent No.3 Muhammad Aslam and respondent No.4 Muhammad Younas Sabir were irregular being against the terms of advertisement and also against the instructions contained in O.M. No.F.27/61/69 F‑II, dated 23rd September, 1969 published as SL No.16 in the Estacode page 52 (1983 Edition). According to the learned counsel the minimum educational qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Stenographer was Intermediate while the said two respondents were only Matriculate and as they were ineligible to the post of Stenographer, as such their appointment to be treated as ad hoc and this period of their irregular ad hoc appointment could not be counted towards their seniority and cannot be placed senior to the petitioner and also their promotion was unwarranted. It is a matter of record that the two respondents were appointed in 1980 while the petitioner was promoted to the post of Stenographer' on 1‑1‑1984 and thus in our view he has rightly been placed junior to the said I respondents. The question is whether the said two respondents being Matriculate were eligible to the posts of Stenographer. The answer to the same is laid down in Estacode that Matriculate stenotyp1sts who have rendered at least three years service as stenotyp1st will be eligible for promotion/appointment as temporary Stenographer. The requisite length of service of respondents Nos.3 and 4 since their appointment in 1974 and 1975 respectively was considered by the department and thus their appointments were regular and in accordance with the prescribed manner. Hence they cannot be described as ad hoc stenographers. In the light of the above discussion, in our considered opinion fit case for interference by this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. A.A./K‑108/S Petition dismissed.