1982 PLP 14 (SCMR)

"Notification.‑Islamabad, the 3rd September, 1980. No. Staff‑136, Coll‑III.‑In supersession of this Ministry's notification No. S. 5‑7/76 dated the 2nd March, 1978, the following Grade‑16 officers of the former Postal Superintendents Service, Class‑11, who have been officiating in Grade‑17 (Postal Group) on temporary and adhoc basis, are promoted to Grade‑17 (Postal Group) on regular basis with immediate effect : (1) Mrs. Zabida Saeed Qureshi. (2) Mr. Nimatullah. (3) Mr. Izharul Huque. (4) Mr. Muhammad Asghar. (5) Mr. Raheel Asghar Ginai. (6) Mr. M. Ehsan Siddiqui.

2. The following Grade‑16 Officers of the former Postal Superintendents Service, Class‑II, are promoted to grade‑17 (Postal Group) on regular basis with immediate effect:- (1) Mr. Zakaullah. (2) Mr. S. Afzal Imam. (3) Mr. S. A. Kazim.

3. The names of aforementioned nine officers have been arranged in order of seniority. These departmentally promoted Officers will rank senior as a class to the directly recruited officers who joined service (Postal Group) in the year 1980." The petitioners interpreted the aforequoted notification that incumbents appointed in grade 17 on regular basis from 1973 to 1980 were placed senior to them. Therefore, they first made a departmental representation and on their failure to receive any response, appeals were then filed before the Tribunal and the same having been dismissed, they have sought leave to appeal. Learned counsel relying on rule 8 of the Civil Servants (Change in Nomenclature of Services and Abolition of Classes) Rules, 1973, has contended : that reservations of post for purposes of appointments promotion of persons belonging to a particular service or cadre having been abolished by the said rule, the ad hoc and purely temporary promotion of the petitioners to a clause of post (for direct recruits) to which the petitioner (promotees) did not belong, would be deemed in law to have been rendered into a promotion on regular basis. Therefore, they would be entitled to be ranked as senior to all those persons who were in fact appointed on regular basis for seven years between 1973 and 1980. Prima facie, the argument of the learned counsel has not impressed us. However, in the circumstances of this case, we do not consider it necessary to give any final decision on the question raised by the learned counsel for the reasons that firstly all those persons who would have been affected if the plea of the petitioners would have been allowed by the Tribunal were not impleaded as parties before the Tribunal nor have they been now impleaded as respondents in these petitions ; be that as it may, the rules being relied upon having been promulgated in November, 1973 the petitioners accepted and continued to accept the basis of their appoint ment as contained in the original notification of appointment dated 2‑8‑1973 ; that the foregoing conduct of the petitioner led to the appointments being made on regular basis for nearly seven years, and if now their plea is accepted, the resultant disturbance in the departmental set up would adversely affect several persons for no fault of their though on account of inaction of the petitioners ; the language used in the notification of 2‑8‑1973 is so clear that the petitioners would be deemed to have clearly accepted the promotion in question on condition that they would not claim seniority on its basis ; and lastly, that the promotion/appointment of the petitioners to grade 17 have been lapsed in June, 1974, they did not ask for and press for their promotion on regular basis for nearly six years. The cumulative effect of the foregoing consideration is that it is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. These petitions accordingly are dismissed. Petitions dismissed. Petition dismissed.