1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

2. Out of the 34 vacancies, 11 were filled by promotion in accordance with Part‑II of the Rules, as required under items 1 and 4 referred to above. The remaining vacancies were advertised through the Federal Public Service Commission for direct appointment.

3. As regards, the departmental quota for promotees, first 11 persons on the seniority list were actually promoted and the appellant being 12th was left out in the batch. It so happened that one of the promotee officers, Mr. Ali Asghar proceeded on, retirement, six months after his promotion.

4. The petitioner, being ineligible due to non‑possession of a second class degree, could not compete for direct recruitment. His representations to the Public Service Commission and the departmental authorities did not produce the desired result.

5. According to the petitioner, the vacancy caused due to the retirement of the promotee officer had to be filled from among the departmental officers, in replacement of the departmental quota. This assertion has a two‑fold meaning or implication, first, that a promotee's vacancy goes to another promotee record, that the promotee also, set the seniority above others as though, he belonged to the original batch.

6. The representations made to the Ministry for Information and to the quarters concerned did not meet with success.

7. Since out of the eleven departmental quota vacancies, one of the officers retired form service, during the period of probation it is argued, the departmental seat ought to have been filled by a departmental candidate in the order of seniority. Had this been done then the petitioner already working as Regional Engineer on ad hoc basis and next in seniority to the eleventh departmental quota official, would have been taken in this vacancy against the departmental quota.

8. Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Khushi Muhammad and others (P L D 1970 S C 203) claiming seniority in the grade from the date of entry.

9. It is admitted by the appellant that 11 promotee Officers, appointed in 1968 were senior to him. It is further admitted that 21 direct recruits were selected by the Public Service Commission in November, 1969 and formally appointed in February, 1970.

10. Being twelfth on the seniority list and there being only 11 vacancies, all having been filled by promotee officers, the 'cycle' or the 'quota' of the promotees was complete. That a vacancy occurred after the posts were filled would not ipso facto allow the 'operation' of the 'cycle' in favour of the promotees. The 'cycle had to operate on the basis of 1 promotee and 2 direct recruits. Subsequently some vacancies are stated to have occurred, 4 of which were meant for promotees. The appellant was promoted against one of these, in September, 1970.

11. Since the appellant was promoted in September, 1970, on a regular basis, tae could not possibly go above the 21 direct recruits, selected in 1969 and appointed in February, 1970. No edge or weightage could be given to the appellant on the basis of the ad hoc appointment held from 1968. Seniority would count from the date of regular appointment in the cadre. The judgment cited, do not support the contention of the appellant. The petition is misconceived. The appeal is dismissed.

12. Although respondents 3‑23 (some of whom opted for Bangla Desh) have not filed any objections, it is not necessary to wait for the filing of objec tions, as the appeal could be disposed of on the basis of the pleadings of respondents 1‑2 and the interpretation of rules. No order as to costs.