1987 PLP 205 (SCMR)

Date of hearing: 6th December, 1986. MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑‑The petitioner Muhammad Mumtaz joined service as a Tracer in the S.E. Department, Lahore on the 4th December, 1969. Respondent No. 5 Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad was also recruited as a Tracer along with the petitioner on one and the same day. Both the petitioner, Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad and respondent No. 5 held the same technical qualifications. When submitting his joining report on the 4th December, 1969, the petitioner stated in his application that he was reporting the "arrival today the 4th December, 1969 before noon" . The case of the petitioner is that the word 'forenoon' in the application was crossed and replaced by the word afternoon.

2. In January 1974, the staff position according to the petitioner was as shown in the statement prepared by the petitioner and placed on the record. In this statement 10 posts of Draftsmen, 5 Draftsmen (including the petitioner and Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad) had been recruited through initial or direct recruitment whereas there were 4 promotee Draftsmen. According to the recruitment rules, the ratio of direct recruitment was 20% i.e.2 posts while that of promotees 20%, i.e. 2 posts out of a total of 10 vacancies.

3. A new Division was created at that time for which 2 Draftsmen were required to be recruited against the direct recruitment quota. The petitioner and the respondent No. 5 Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad applied for the post and were selected for appointment as Draftsman on the basis of their technical qualifications by the Superintending Engineer, Highway Circle, Sargodha on 19th January, 1974. The petitioner joined as Draftsman on 23rd January, 1974 afternoon and respondent No. 5 Mushtaq Ahmad on 24th January, 1974 forenoon. The seniority list of the Drawing Establishment was issued on the 31st December, 1981 by the Superintending Engineer, Highway Circle, Sargodha, in which the petitioner was shown junior to respondent No. 5 as Draftsman. The petitioner challenged this seniority through a representation which was accepted by the Superintending Engineer vide his letter, dated 17th July, 1982. Subsequently, another seniority list of the Drawing Establishment was issued on the 31st December, 1981, in which the petitioner was shown as senior to respondent No.

5. A few months earlier, respondent No. 5 had submitted a representation, dated 1st December, 1983 for review of his seniority. In the meantime, respondent No. 4 Mr. Muhammad Masood Akhtar, who was senior to both the petitioner and respondent, was superseded by them and they were appointed as Head Draftsman w.e.f. 1‑7‑1983. Mr. Muhammad Masood Akhtar challenged his super session and consequently, both petitioner and respondent No. 5 were reverted to make room for Mr. Muhammad Masood Akhtar. The representation of Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad respondent No. 5 was rejected by the competent authority namely the Superintending Engineer vide his letter of 17th July, 1984, but was accepted by respondent No. 2 Chief Engineer, North Zone, Highway Department, Lahore on 28th July, 1984 reverting the petitioner and appointing respondent No. 4 as Draftsman. The petitioner submitted a representation to the higher authority which was turned down by Chief Engineer vide his order, dated 15‑8‑1984. Subsequently , respondent No. 4 was promoted as Head Draftsman vide order, dated 28th June, 1984. The petitioner filed a representation against the said order, which was rejected as already stated above. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal which was dismissed vide his impugned order, dated 27th February, 1985. 4.Now the petitioner seek to appeal for special leave on the following grounds:‑‑ (1) That he and respondent No. 5 Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad was selected for appointment as Tracer, joined service on the same date (4‑12‑1969) but was treated by the Department, as junior to respondent No. 5 as he joined service in the 'afternoon' whereas respondent No. 5 in the 'forenoon' and subsequently, on promotion /appointment, the petitioner joined as Draftsman on the 23rd of January, 1974 and respondent No. 5 Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad on 24th January, 1974 and such inter se seniority between the two in the grade of Draftsman will be determined by the date o1 their appointment /promotion and that the mentioning of the expressions 'afternoon' 'forenoon' in the letters of their appointment /promotion will have no impact on their seniority. (2) That the technical qualifications possessed by respondent No. 4 Mr. Muhammad Masood Akhtar does not conform to the prescribed qualification for eligibility for promotion to the next higher rank, as held by the Technical Authortities concerned and contrary views expressed by the Finance Department cannot be taken as having overruled the opinion 'of the Technical Authorities. 5.We have examined the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not correct that the petitioner and respondent No. 5 were selected and not promoted. It is also clear that respondent No. 5 was senior vis‑a‑vis the petitioner and placed at serial No. 1 as Tracer as well as Draftsman. However, later on the Superintending Engineer, Highway Circle, Sargodha, wrongly fixed the seniority of the petitioner declaring him senior to the said respondent. This wrong order of the Superintending Engineer, was corrected by the Chief Engineer, North Zone, Highway Department, Lahore vide his order, memo. No. 70‑E II/76/1221/E (4), dated the 15th August, 1984 and respondent No. 5 Mushtaq Ahmad was correctly declared senior to the petitioner. Regarding the reversion of the petitioner from the post of Head Draftsman to the Draftsman, we find the respondent No. 4 Mr. Masood Akhtar was senior to both the petitioner and respondent No. 5 but was not promoted as Head Draftsman and there was some misunderstanding regarding their technical qualifications. On his representation to the Chief Engineer, respondent No. 2, his case was examined and it was decided that the petitioner as well as respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were technically qualified for promotion to the post of Head Draftsman and respondent No. 4 being senior to them was promoted as Head Draftsman. We have also examined the service joining report and found that there is no mistake. The petitioner having joined the service on 4th December, 1969 in the 'afternoon' while respondent No. 5 joined in the 'forenoon' there is no l scoring of the word 'forenoon' or 'afternoon' nor there is any over-writing. 6.The net result is that leave is refused, and the petition is dismissed. M. I. Petition dismissed.