2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd April, 2003. KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J .‑‑‑This judgment will dispose of Civil Petition No. 2828‑L of 2000 and Civil Petition No. 2848‑L of 2000, as these are directed against one and the same judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter to be referred as "the Tribunal"), dated 26‑9‑2000 by which judgment it decided Appeals Nos.221 of 1992 and 870 of 1996 between the same parties and arising out of the common facts.

2. In their appeals before the Tribunal the petitioners requested:‑‑ "That by accepting the appeal, the impugned orders, date 4‑3‑1980, 2‑9‑1981 and 22‑4‑1992, passed by respondent No.2 may kindly be set aside and the respondent No.3 (Mr. Muhammad Attique, Senior Scale Stenographer) may be reverted as Stenographer and repatriated to his parent Circle i.e. Rahimyarkhan Circle to safeguard the legitimate rights of appellant. " By order, dated 4‑3‑1980 respondents No.3 Muhammad Attiq was transferred from Rahimyar Khan to Bahawalpur. The two petitioners were already working as Assistants at Bahawalpur. It seems in the seniority list prepared in 1986 respondent No.3 was shown senior, Malik Muhammad Shafi, petitioner in (C.P. No. 2828‑L of 2000) filed an appeal in the Tribunal which was allowed on 8‑8‑1991 and the case was remanded to the Chief Engineer, Bahawalpur for fresh decision in accordance with law after hearing the parties. The Chief Engineer vide his order, dated 22‑4‑1992 rejected the appeals/representations of these petitioners and held that seniority list issued in the year 1986 would stand. The two petitioners thereafter challenged the order, dated 22‑4‑1992 in the Tribunal.

3. The Tribunal held that the grievance of the petitioners was against the order, dated 4‑3‑1980 (transferring respondent No.3 from Rahimyar Khan to Bahawalpur) which order was not challenged at the appropriate time. According to it, the subsequent orders are mere superstructure and as appeal against original order was barred by time, the same was liable to be dismissed. It also found that in any case all the three namely, the two petitioners and respondent No.3, since stand promoted as Superintendent and the controversy is more or less academic. It therefore, refused to interfere.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of these two petitions has made valiant. effort to show that conclusions of the Tribunal are not proper and valid. He has argued that by filing an appeal against the order, dated 22‑4‑1992 the petitioners could validly attack earlier orders, dated 4‑3‑1980, 2‑9‑1980 and 2‑9‑1981 (promoting the respondent No.3 as a senior scale Stenographer). He has also submitted that notwithstanding the promotion of the parties as Superintendent, the Tribunal could have and should have interfered.

5. Under Article 212(3) of the Constitution, 1973 the grant of leave to appeal, against the judgment and order of the Tribunal is restricted to a case involving substantial question of law of public importance. The submissions made by learned counsel do not show that any substantial question of law of public importance is involved. Nevertheless we tend to agree with the Tribunal that petitioners ought to have challenged the orders, dated 4‑3‑1980 and 2‑9‑1981 within time and that these orders cannot be interfered with in appeal against the order, dated 22‑4‑1992, which affirmed the seniority list earlier circulated. Even the view that as the contesting parties have all been promoted as Superintendent the question is more or less academic, does not seem to be invalid.

6. No ground for grant of leave is made out. These two petitions are hereby dismissed. Leave is declined. S.A.K./M‑27/5 Leave refused.