1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Public Prosecutor for Respondents Nos. 1 and

2. Oazi Muhammad Anwar for Respondent No.

3. Date of institution: 13th December, 1987. MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑The present appeal was filed under section 4 of the N.‑W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1)74 against the order of respondent No. 1 dated 1‑8‑1987 vide which respondent No. 3 was shown senior than the appellant. According to him both joined the department as Labour Inspectors in NPS‑9 on 17‑8‑1978. In the seniority list dated 31‑8‑1978 appellant was shown against S.No.1 and respondent No. 3 at S.No.

3. Another list dated 5‑5‑1987 was circulated in which appellant was shown at S.No. 10 and respondent No. 3 at S.No.

12. However, respondent No. 3 raised objections to it and the appellant was asked to give his comments. The same was done on 14‑7‑1987 but the impugned seniority list dated 1‑8‑1987 would contain the names of the respondent No. 3 at S.No. 10 and appellant at S. No.

11. An appeal was filed by him but no reply so far; hence the present appeal on the ground that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and based on a time‑barred representation. The initial seniority list was not challenged by the respondent No. 3 and the same had got finality. Claim of the appellant was resisted by the respondents, who submitted separate written statements. According to them the appellant had got no cause of action, the appeal is not competent, respondent No. 3 was actually senior, no marking list was prepared by the Departmental Selection Committee and the impugned seniority list was the only list which was prepared and it too was tentative/provisional and after inviting the objections, the same were incorporated in it. We have given patient hearing to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Actually Annexure `B' which is claimed by the appellant to be the seniority list is the consolidated appointment order of the persons, who were selected in the interview commenced for the selection of the Labour Inspectors. It does contain the words in order of merits. However, it was a casual reference because if this were the position then the seniority list (Annexure C) dated 5‑5‑1987 must not have contained the condition that an aggrieved Government servant is asked to submit the objections within 30 days of the date of issue of the list. We have perused the minutes and have observed that no marking list or any other formula was maintained there while interviewing the various candidates. Besides this there were three officers who conducted the interview, the Director, Labour, the Deputy Director, Labour and the Assistant Director, Labour but the list bears the signature of only one of them (File No. DL/Admn/2/2 at pages 1 to 14) We were told at the bar by the representative of the respondents 1 and 2 that there are no rules of the department excepting the general rules applicable to the incumbent. Since the formula was not mentioned in the minutes of the Departmental Selection Committee, we are to follow the other criteria i.e. the age of both the employees as well as the date of taking the new assignment. A perusal of Annexure‑B would show that appellant joined the A, service on 21‑8‑1978 and respondent No. 3 on 19‑8‑1978. The year of birth of the appellant given by him in the Court is 1953 while that of respondent No. 3 is 1951. It is thus clear that respondent No. 3 ranks senior than the appellant on the basis of the above analogy. There being no merits in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs and file be consigned to the record room. AA./98/Sr. N Appeal dismissed.