1971 PLP [C (PLC(CS))

West Pakistan Civil Services (Appellate Tribunals) Ordinance (XXVIII of 1969), S. 4(i)‑Jurisdiction of Tribunal‑Reversion‑ Remedy lies before competent authority ‑ Tribunal cannot quash order‑of reversion‑Appellant reverted from rank of S. D. O. to Overseer‑Records indicating appellant senior than respondents in grade of Overseer and no element of supersession‑Appellant, in circumstances, held, would retain his basic seniority even though promoted as S. D. O. subsequently‑Competent authority, in circum stances, advised to re‑examine reversion of appellant in Case he was reverted simply due to considering him junior. ORDER S. A. MAHMOOD (CHAIRMAN).‑By this appeal under section 4(1) of the West Pakistan Civil Services (Appellate Tri bunals) Ordinance 1969,‑Sh. Nasirud Din, appellant, who is now Overseer in Eastern Region, Bahawalpur prays, that accepting his appeal; the seniority of the appellant may be restored and all consequential relief granted to him by affecting reversion of his juniors, on the basis of seniority and all dues paid to him accordingly. Sh. Nasirud Din, appellant, is present along with Pir Rafiud Din Shah, Advocate. The Chief Engineer, Eastern Region, Bahawalpur is represented by Mr. Rashid Ahmad Khan in Lahore, Senior Superintendent of the Office of Chief Engineer, Buildings Bahawalpur. Out of the respondents, Ahmed Yar Khan, Muhammad Anwar Butt, I. H. Siddiqui, Abdul Ghani, Rehmat Ali, Ashraf Ali, Muhammad Amin, Ziaul Haq, Muhammad Rafique, Salim Ullah and Rashid Akhtar Cheema, respondents 2 to 12, Rashid Akhtar Cheema is alone present. The respondents 2 to 12 have all been promoted of an Officiating Sub‑Divisional Officers, and are posted in the Central Region of the Punjab Province, while the appellant is posted to the Eastern Region, Bahawalpur, as Overseer. The appellant was recruited as temporary Overseer in the Bahawalpur State on the 18th April 1946. By order dated 4th November 1963, he was confirmed as Overseer w. e. f. 14‑10‑

55. By another order dated 29th April 1962, Ahmed Yar Khan, Muhammad Anwar Butt and I. H. Siddiqui were confirmed as Overseers from 14th October 1955, Abdul Ghani from 15‑10‑1955, Rehmat All from 6‑12‑1955, Ashraf Ali from 15‑2‑1956, Muhammad Amin from 1‑3‑1956, Ziaul Haq from 2‑12‑1956, Muhammad Rafique from 3‑10‑1957 Salim Ullah from 1‑7‑1958 and Rashid Akhtar Cheema from 1‑1‑1959. Thus the dates of confirmation as Overseers of the appellants, Ahmed Yar Khan, Muhammad Anwar Butt and I. H. Siddiqui are earliest. The appellant was integrated as Overseer on integration, while the respondents were all recruited in the Punjab Province. The appellant was promoted as officiating S. D. O. by order dated 4th August 1965. This order was notified on 17th August 1965. He was reverted as Overseer by order dated 24‑11‑1965 and was relieved on 13‑12‑1965. We are informed by Mr. Rashid Ahmed Khan Leghari that his reversion took place due to lack of vacancy. This led to 24 Officiating S. D. Os., being reverted by order dated 13th December 1965. The appellant challenged his reversion by a civil suit on the ground that he could not be reverted, not being the junior most. That suit having filed on 27th January 1968, the appellant filed an appeal, which abated on 10‑3‑1970. We then instituted this appeal on 6‑6‑1970. The main claim of the appellant in this appeal is that as he was not the junior most S. D. O., but was the senior most Overseer and was also senior to respondents 2 to 12 as Overseer, he should not have been reverted. He claims the fixation of his seniority in the rank‑of S. D. O. y quashing the order of rever sion. We do not have the jurisdiction to quash an order of reversion. We can only interfere with an order of seniority of which the appellant is aggrieved. No doubt he cannot count his seniority in the grade of S. D. O.; but that fact does not give us jurisdiction to set aside an order of reversion. By comparison of the service records of the appellant vis‑a vis respondents, we find that he is not the junior most. It has been conceded by Mr. Rashid Ahmed Khan Laghari that the appellant is senior to respondents 2 to 12 as Overseer. If he was senior as Overseer, he would remain senior to them even as S. D. O., though he may have been promoted later if they did not e supersede him by comparative examination of his service record, which it is claimed was not done and which it is admitted was not done. Thus the appellant remains senior to the respondents, even as S. D. O. We are told by Mr. Rashid Ahmed Khan Laghari that the sole ground on which Sh. Nasirud Din, appel lant, was reverted was his non‑confirmation in 1962 when Overseers belonging to Punjab Cadre were confirmed, and he was not treated junior as Overseer, which he was not. Therefore, if his reversion was caused for the reason that he was treated as junior most Overseer or S. D. O., his case of reversion needs to be re‑examined by the competent authority. A copy of this, order will, therefore, he sent to the competent authority I.e., Secretary, Communication and Works, to examine whether the reversion of the appellant was justified in the circumstances of the case. For the reasons stated above, we order as above, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.