1987 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE FAROOQI (CHAIRMAN).‑‑The appellant has challenged the order of Director Education dated 17‑4‑1982 whereby seniority list of trained graduate teachers was required to be circulated. The appellant contends that in the impugned list, his name figures at S. No.163 and his name has been entered in the list, with reference to 11‑12‑1976 whiqh is the date of his passing of B.Ed. examination. According to the appellant, he had undergone the training earlier but was placed in the compartment and on passing the examination, the pay scale of trained teachers was sanctioned in his favour, w.e.f. 12‑3‑1974. In the seniority list his name was placed below those persons, who were placed in the scale of the trained graduate teachers latter than the appellant. It was contended that according to the note under Article 84 K.S.R. Vol. I, the teachers who at the end of their training are placed in compartment and who come out successfully in the compartment test or tests, will be considered to have passed the examination within the prescribed time. The appellant contended that the pay scale was sanctioned in his favour on the strength of the above provision of law but seniority from the date of entry into pay h scale has been refused, which according to the appellant was an illegal u act of the department.

2. The respondents pleaded that name of the appellant was entered in the seniority list at the proper place and that names of teachers were entered in the list according to the educational qualification and provisions of rules for giving financial benefits were not applicable in the matter of seniority. The respondents also raised preliminary objection that the appeal was time‑barred.

3. We attended to the contentions of the parties and perused the record. In our view, the appeal merits dismissal for the following reasons:‑ (a) The order challenged by the appellant is not final because a tentative seniority list was circulated through this order and it was desired by the Director of Education that list be circulated to all the senior teachers who could apply for the correction of the entries relating to their service, if any entry was incorrect. The extract of the order is reproduced below:‑ The order reproduced above is in no way final order, therefore, the appeal against such an order cannot be preferred before this Tribunal, in view of the provisions of section 4 of Service Tribunals Act, 1974. (b) The contention of appellant that he had mentioned in the grounds of appeal that another seniority list was prepared in which his name was placed against the same S.No. namely 163, does not in any way help the appellant because the later seniority list even if issued, has not been placed on record, nor in any way challenged. If that list was not circulated, even then it was the duty of the appellant to get a copy by making an application. Assuming, though not conceding, that the appellant challenged the subsequent final list, the appeal still remains incompetent for the reason that copy of that has not been placed on record. Under the provisions of para. 1 (e) of the Schedule I of the Service Tribunal Act, it is mandatory that the appeal should accompany a copy of the order challenged by the appellant. In absence of a copy, the appeal is not maintainable. We are fortified in our view by a case entitled Government of Pakistan v. Tariq Hassan Farooqi, P L D 1984 (AJK) SC 47, wherein it was held that non‑observance of Rules 1 and 3 of Order XIII of Supreme Court Rules, 1979, requiring the annexation of the copy of order with appeal, makes the appeal incompetent. (c) The appeal has been lodged on 29‑3‑1983 against order dated 17‑4‑1982. It has been argued that the order was not communicated to the appellant and it came to his knowledge in November, 1982, when he happened to see the seniority list in his office. He preferred an appeal to the Secretary Education on 29‑11‑1982 which had not been decided, so, after waiting for the requisite statutory period, he came in appeal before this Tribunal. The appellant should have filed objections against the impugned order, before the competent authority namely Director of Education because the list had not become final and if at all he wanted to file the appeal before the departmental authority, he should have impleaded as party, all the persons shown senior to him in the impugned seniority list but the copy of the appeal placed on record shows that he did not implead any such person as party in the appeal submitted to Secretary Education. (d) The communication of the appellant addressed to the Secretary Education placed on record is an application, which cannot be termed as regular appeal. It does not conform to the provisions applicable to appeals. (e) There is another application dated 21‑11‑1980 on record which purports to have been made to the Director Education. In this application, it has been contended that the appellant submitted 10 applications for determination of his seniority but no section was taken on either of them. It appears that the case of seniority of the appellant was in dispute since long but he never approaches the appropriate authority at the relevant time through a regular proceeding provided by law. (f) The appellant has not impleaded the persons shown senior to him in the seniority list, as party in appeal before the Tribunal whom he wants to get declared as junior to him. In absence of such persons, who are necessary parties in the case, the appeal is not competent. The belated application for impleading the persons as party was rejected by us on 28‑9‑1986.

3. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is not maintainable. Before parting with the judgment, we feel obliged to remark that there are a number of appeals before this Tribunal on the same point that seniority should be determined with reference to the date of entry into grade of trained graduate teachers and not from the date of passing of B.Ed. examination. Since the persons who may be effected by any order of this Tribunal are not before us, we cannot determine the matter either way in their absence and there are technical defects in this appeal. Nevertheless, we recommend that Secretary Education will please personally look into the matter and see that the departmental appeals pending before him in similar cases are decided within minimum possible time.

4. As a result of the above discussion, we dismiss the appeal alongwith the above observation. The judgment will not stand in the way of the appellant if his claim is otherwise found genuine by the departmental authority. We make no order s to the costs. A.A. /42‑S/ Lb/S Appeal dismissed.