1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

NOOR MUHAMMAD MAGSI (MEMBER).‑‑‑Appellant Habibullah Nasir, has filed Appeal 152(L)/1994 and appellant Habib Ghani, has filed Appeal No.159(L)/1994. As both the appeals are identical, these are disposed of by this consolidated judgment.

2. Appellants in the abovementioned appeals, have challenged the validity of seniority list dated 2‑3‑1994 in which their seniority position was relegated.

3. The facts in brief, are that the Federal Public Service Commission called applications through advertisement No.31/1987, dated 2‑8‑1987, for the posts of Field Officers (B‑16) and through advertisement No.32/1987, dated 16‑8‑1987, for the posts of Assistant Curators (B‑16), in the Department of Archaeology and Museums, Culture, Sports and Youth Affairs Division.

4. Both the appellants applied for the posts of Assistant Curator (B‑16) in response to Advertisement No.32/1987, dated 16‑8‑1987. They appeared in the interview conducted by the F:P.S.C. and were declared successful. The Commission issued a merit list of seven successful candidates through letter dated 3‑9‑1988 for appointment to the posts of Assistant Curator (B‑16). This list includes the following candidates including the appellants:‑ (1) Mr. Tauqeer Ahmad. (2) Mr. Muhammad. (3) Mr. Habib Ghani. (4) Mr. Altaf Ahmad. (5) Mr. Habib Ullah Nasir. (6) Mr. Jawed Ahmad Khan. (7) Miss Naheed Zahra. In the above merit list, name of appellant Habibullah Nasir appears at S.No.5 and appellant Habib‑ Ghani, at S.No.3. Out of above 7 candidates, only 4 candidates, including appellants, namely M/s. Habibullah Nasir (S.No.5), Habib Ghani (S.No.3), Jawed Ahmad Khan (S.No.6) and Miss Naheed Zahra (S.No.7), joined the Department.

5. On 4‑5‑1989, the F.P.S.C. issued another merit list of successful candidates who had applied for the posts of Field Officer (B‑16) in response to advertisement No.31/1987, dated 2‑8‑1987. This list includes among others, the names of respondents No. 5 to 8, i.e. M/s. Abdul Azim, Muhammad Afzal Khan, Hassan Abbas Hasl1rni and Ansar Ahmad.

6. Appellant Habibullah Nasir had assumed the charge of the post on 26‑10‑1988 and appellant Habib Ghani assumed the charge on 24‑10‑1988. On 10‑11‑1992 a seniority list of Officers (B‑16) was issued by the Department of Archaeology, in which the appellant Habib Ghani was assigned seniority position No. 1st and appellant Habibullah Nasir, seniority position 2nd, according to their assumption of charge on regular basis in B‑

16. In that very list, respondents Nos. 5 to 8 were shown junior to the appellants having 5th to 8th position respectively.

7. On 2‑3‑1994, the respondent Department had issued the impugned seniority list in which the appellants were placed junior to respondents Nos. 5 to

8. In that list, appellant Habib Ghani was placed at 5th position and appellant Habibullah Nasir at 6th. Being aggrieved, the appellants made departmental appeals and having not succeeded, they came to this Tribunal for relief.

8. The case of the appellants is that they were recommended and assigned merit by the F.P.S.C. earlier than the respondents Nos. 5 to

8. They have also assumed the charge of the post on regular basis earlier than the respondents. Therefore, in all respects they are senior to respondents, and they were rightly assigned seniority as per order dated 10th November, 1992. Subsequent order dated 2‑3‑1994, relegating their seniority, is illegal, unjustified and against the principles of natural justice, and is liable to be set aide.

9. The respondents Department have contended that respondents Nos.5 to 8 had applied for B‑16 post through earlier advertisement of the F.P.S.C. dated 2‑8‑1987 whereas the appellants had applied as per subsequent advertisement dated 16‑8‑1987. Due to some reasons, interviews of earlier applicants were delayed. Thus, the appellants who applied subsequently, were interviewed earlier and recommended by the F.P.S.C., and they joined earlier. Respondents Nos. 5 to 8 who applied earlier but were interviewed later and subsequently recommended by the F.P.S.C., therefore, they joined after the appellants. They contended that the officers recruited through an earlier advertisement, would rank senior to those recruited through a subsequent advertisement.

10. Section 8 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 relates to seniority and sub?section (3) thereof provides that seniority on initial appointment to a service, cadre or post shall be determined as may be prescribed. For the purpose of determination of seniority of the civil servant the Government has framed rules called as General Principles of seniority contained in ESTACODE 1989 page

225. In the present case, both the categories of the appellants as well as private respondents were appointed directly by the F.P.S.C. and the relevant provisions relating to their seniority are contained at paragraphs A(i) and (ii) which read as under:‑‑ "A.(i) Direct recruits through the Federal Public Service Commission.‑‑‑Officers recruited directly by the F.P.S.C. through an early open advertisement would rank senior to those recruited through a subsequent open advertisement. (ii) If two or more persons are recommended in open advertisement by the F.P.S.C., their inter se seniority would be determined in the order of merit assigned by the F.P.S.C."

11. The appellant applied for the post of Assistant Curator in response to advertisement No.32/87, dated 16‑8‑1987, whereas the private respondents applied for the post of Field Officer (BPS‑16) in response to advertisement No.31/87, dated 2‑8‑1987. The candidates were interviewed by the Commission at different stations and selections were made by conducting interviews at different stations and naturally this process took sufficiently long time. Luckily, the cases of the appellants were finalized earlier whereas the cases of the private respondents were finalized later but for no fault on their part. Therefore, the appellants joining earlier than the private respondents is immaterial, as under the rules, seniority on initial appointment by way of selection through F.P.S.C. is not reckoned from the date of joining but according to the merit and in the present case the seniority of the appellants vis-a-vis the private respondent has to be regulated under the provisions of paragraph A(i) of the General Principles of Seniority and the department has rightly determined the seniority of the private respondents over the appellants on the advice of F.Sc. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeals and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./1063/Sr.F ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed.