1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are direct recruits and were appointed against the vacancies in the posts of Section Officers meant for direct recruits under the West Pakistan Section Officers Recruitment Rules, 196,2, according to which 50% posts were reserved for direct recruits and against the remaining one‑half the departmental promotees and members of the Provincial Civil Service and the Civil Service of Pakistan were to be appointed. Respondents 2 to 39 were initially promoted as Section Officers on ad hoc basis, but subsequently respondents 2 to 10 were, appointed on regular basis with effect from March 1971 to March 1972, respondents 11 to 24 and 39 with effect from 31st March, 1972 and respondents 25 to 38 with effect from 1st December, 1973 and were promoted to NPS

18. The appellants were confirmed as Section Officers in 1973‑

74. The appellants, in the first instance, disputed the grant of Grade 18 to the respondents. Subsequently the appellants were also granted grade 18 and thus the aforesaid grievance of the appellant has been redressed. However, they pressed for their seniority and also claimed that they should have been placed in Grade 18 prior to respondents 2 to

39. In support of the above the appellants have raised the following two‑contentions: ‑ (i) that according to the 1962 Rules the appellants being holders of substantive appointments were entitled to rank senior to the respon dents 2 to 39 who were still holding posts of Section Officers on temporary basis ; and (ii) that respondents 2 to 39 could not be 'promoted in Grade 18 as their appointments were in excess of the prescribed quota. The appellants in this behalf have relied, upon Annexure F/ 2 to show that respondents 2 to 39 as a class already held 89 posts whereas the total permanent posts in the cadre of Section Officers were 101 and thus the respondents were holding appointments as Section Officers much in excess of their quota and, therefore, could not 'be appointed on a regular basis. As such, notwithstanding the impugned appointment order, to the extent they occupied the posts in excess of their quota, they continued to be holders of ad hoc appointments and the aforesaid service could not qualify towards seniority.

3. We summoned the record and the Department explained that in the first instance, according to the 1962 Rules, seniority was to be deter mined not on the basis of confirmation but on the basis of appointment against a permanent post. It was not, disputed that the appointments held by the respondents were against permanent posts. Thus the contention of the appellant had no force and in fact thereafter it was not pressed very seriously. As regards the second objection, the Department pointed out that the list of 80 persons (Annex. F/2) supplied by the appellants did not depict the situation correctly. It was submitted that the persons mention ed at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 had already been promoted on regular basis as Deputy Secretaries and are no longer holders of the posts of Section Officers. Similarly the persons mentioned at Serial Nos. 3 and 33 had been already retired and Mr. Karim Bakhsh Qureshi whose name appeared at Serial No. 41 died on 10th February, 1972. Moreover, the name of Mr. Ahmad Din appeared twice on the list at Serial Nos. 25 and

26. The persons at Serial Nos. 4 to 17, i.e. 14 persons were in fact direct recruits and were not promotees. Thus names of 20 persons in the list were unjustifiably included. Moreover, the appointment of aforesaid 14 persons included in the list had to be counted in the quota of direct recruits which will make two‑fold difference. As to the cadre, strength, the Department has pointed out that there were 12 clear vacanies in tile quota of pro motees, as nine persons had retired and one died and two proceeded on deputation. In addition to the above, 18 posts which were meant to be filled by PCS/CSP officers and 14 posts which were meant for the leave reserves/trainees were converted by the order of the Governor and made available for appointment to the promotees. Evidently against these posts the appellants who were entitled to be appointed against the quota pres cribed for direct recruits, had no right and could not claim appointment against the same. Thus 44 appointments ordered by the Government were perfectly in order.

4. After hearing both the patties and going through the records, w find that the posts against which respondents Nos. 2 to 39 have bee appointed did not fall in the quota of the direct recruits and, therefore, appellants had no right to be considered for appointment against the same. Consequently the appellants cannot question the appointment of the, respondents against the said posts. As explained by respondents, even the data supplied by the appellants did not represent the factual position correctly and was not reliable. The appellants have failed to establish the same to our satisfaction. We, therefore, find little force in this contention of the appellants which is hereby rejected. Consequently all the 13 appeals fail and are rejected accordingly. Appeals rejected.