2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

5. We have considered the above submissions and perused the material placed on the record. Contention that appellant was discriminated with regard to condonation of some period of Taluka training, has no substance. As per the written statement of respondent No.2 and the documents filed therewith, 10 posts of Mukhtiarkars were lying vacant and there was shortage of qualified persons, therefore, a summary, was floated to the Revenue Minister Sindh for condonation of deficiency of some of the revenue subordinates which includes private respondents Nos.3, 4 and 5 for the purpose of inclusion of their names in the select list of 1990, on the basis of following criteria of marks as contained in the Revenue Department's Resolution No.S‑IX‑11‑6/41, dated 18‑1‑1945. 1 mark for each year of service. 1 mark for each year after passing R.Q.E. 5 marks for Bachelors degree 5 marks for LL.B, degree and 3 marks for M.A. degree. Admittedly, the marks of private respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were 31, 27 and 14 respectively, whereas appellant had only 1 mark, there was thus no question of discrimination, as alleged by appellant.

6. With regard to second contention that appellant who passed R.Q.E much prior to private respondents, but he was not assigned any seniority position, it may be stated that private respondents Nos. 6 to 11 and 14 besides many other revenue subordinates, in the year 1987 were individually granted exemptions from passing Revenue Qualifying Examination by the then Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Sindh (Mr. Amir Yousif Ali) as per Revenue Department's notification dated 4‑9‑1977, which were subsequently cancelled/withdrawn by successor Senior Member, B.O.R. (Mr. A.K. Lodhi) by order dated 18‑8‑1987. The affectees challenged said order by filing C.Ps. Nos.D‑863/1987, 234/1987, 247/1987 and others. However, in view of decisions in C.Ps. Nos.D‑234 and 247/1987, the offending order dated 18‑8‑1987 was withdrawn on 19‑10‑1987. Therefore, all the exemptees were issued show‑cause notice (s) on 21‑10‑1987 as to why the exemption granted to them should not be cancelled. The show cause notice(s) were replied by every' individual, but the department vide another order dated 15‑8‑1988 again withdraw the exemptions. The aggrieved officials including these respondents challenged the said withdrawal order by filing C.Ps. Nos.D‑960 of 1988 and 8 others before the Honourable High Court of Sindh, Karachi. All the said petitions by common judgment dated 10‑12‑1989 were allowed. The operative part (Para‑15) of the judgment reads as under:

''We would, therefore, accept all these petitions and declare, that the impugned orders whereby the exemptions earlier granted to the petitioners from appearing in the Revenue Qualifying Examination had been withdrawn, were without lawful authority and the petitioners would continue to enjoy the said exemptions and its consequential benefits, including their promotions and prospects of future promotions as per departmental rules . The Government being aggrieved of the above common judgment preferred Civil Petitions before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. During its pendency, private respondents Nos.6 to 11 and 14 and some others, who in the meantime completed their 12 months mandatory Taluka training, had given an undertaking that they would qualify the Revenue Qualifying Examination within 3 years if the appeal filed before the apex Court is withdrawn and consequently they are considered for promotion as Mukhtiarkars. On the basis of such undertaking, the Civil Petitions were withdrawn by the Government and were disposed of as such. The private respondents named above, were thereafter promoted as Mukhtiarkars after observing all the codal formalities. It was in these circumstances, these private respondents appeared in R.Q.E. during 1993‑94 sessions and cleared the same. Subsequent thereto, their services as Mukhtiarkars were also regularized and their names were included in the impugned seniority list. It is worthwhile to point out here that before moving application for the withdrawal of the Civil Petitions on the basis of undertaking as stated earlier, the Board of Revenue Sindh had floated a summary to the then Chief Minister for approval. The Chief Minister Sindh, at para. 9 of the summary passed following order: "Appeal filed in the Supreme Court may be withdrawn unconditionally and all consequential benefits may be allowed to the incumbents in view of the Honourable High Court of Sindh's judgment." Although in view of such clear orders of the then Chief Minister, Sindh these private respondents were not supposed to appear in R.Q.E yet they appeared in such examination and cleared the same within the stipulated period. In these circumstances, appellant's contention that these private respondents passed R.Q.E much after the appellant, therefore, they are juniors to him, has no substance.

7. The second last contention that none of the private respondents acquired Taluka training which is a condition precedent for inclusion of name in the select list, is absolutely false. An a matter of fact all the private respondents have completed the requisite training prior to passing their R.Q.E. as certified and confirmed by the official respondent No.2 in its written statement, private respondents Nos.7, 9, 11 and 14 hive also produced the certificates of completion of 12 months mandatory Taluka training. The fact of their acquiring training is also confirmed from the order dated 27‑2‑1990 annexed with the written statement filed by respondent No.11. It is pertinent to point out that in view of clarification contained in letter dated 6‑7‑1974 of Board of Revenue Sindh, Hyderabad, (Annexure `G') the period of Taluka Head Munshi's/Assistant Mukhtiarkar's training before or after passing R.Q.E, shall be counted towards the tenure of 12 months Taluka training, which is a pre‑requisite for consideration for inclusion of name of an incumbent in the select list of revenue subordinates fit to act as Mukhtiarkar. The training period is thus not restricted to that, after passing the R.Q.E.

8. We are also not persuaded to agree with the contention that appellant's case is identical to that of Tariq Ali who has been allowed seniority over and above the private respondents as per order of the appellate authority viz Chief Secretary Sindh, contained in letter dated 13‑8‑2003, therefore, appellant is also entitled to same relief. The said order being an administrative order is neither binding upon us nor the same has any persuasive value to follow.

9. Needless to observe here that appellant was a junior clerk. After passing of R.Q.E. and completion of mandatory Taluka training he was posted to act as Mukhtiarkar on his own pay and scale against the 50 % reserved quota of direct recruiters vide notification dated 22‑4‑1993. Since he was not promoted on regular basis to the post of Mukhtiarkar his name was rightly not included in the impugned seniority list. Beside appellant's position being of junior clerk, he has thus no locus standi to challenge the impugned seniority list.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, finding no merit in the instant appeal, the same is dismissed accordingly. Parties are, however left to bear their own costs.

11. Announced in open Court. H.B.T./21/K.S.T. Appeal dismissed.