1998 PLP 2438 (SCMR)

AJMAL MIAN, CJ.

This is an appeal with the leave of this Court against the judgment dated 3-8-1992 of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar in Appeal No.6 of 1992, challenging the seniority list dated 15-6-1991 issued by respondent No.2 placing respondent No.4 as senior to the appellant, dismissing the same. The brief facts are that respondent No.4 joined the Provincial Training Board, TTC on 7-10-1985 on temporary basis. He was adjusted in the Provincial Training Board/TTC with effect from 1-1-1986. Whereas the appellant was inducted into service on 4-5-1988. It appears that on 3-4-1990 the Government of N.-W.F.P. framed Appointment, Promotion and Transfer Rules, which provided certain additional qualifications for the Instructors and other employees working in the Provincial Training Board/TTC. The appellant challenged the above seniority list on the found that respondent No.4 did not have the requisite qualification when he was adjusted in the service. However, the above ground was found untenable by the department as well as by the Service Tribunal which dismissed the appeal for the following reasons:-- "As regards point No.1 the appellant does not have a case at all because in the first instance when the adjustment of the respondent No.4 took place in the Provincial Training Board, TTC w.e.f. 1-1-1986, the appellant was not in service. So the question of seniority, at the time of induction of respondent No.4 did not arise. As regards point No.2 the simple reading of the condition laid down in the order of adjustment dated 15-5-1986 (annexure-B) on the file indicates that the permanent absorption of the officers was subject to the possessing of necessary qualifications and fulfilment of the terms and conditions laid down in the Departmental Recruitment and Appointment Rules. In fact at that juncture no departmental recruitment and appointment rules were in existence. The rules were framed in 1990 and the rules could not be retrospective nor the rules could be made retrospective by the application of the terms and conditions laid down in the adjustment order. The simple order of adjustment could not override the principle of interpretation of Statute. Rules are always prospective in nature and can not be enforced retrospectively. So in the first instance at the time of adjustment of respondent No.4 there did not exist any rules which a could prevent his adjustment and secondly the rules to which the appellant makes reference are the rules framed in,~1,990 and relates to induction of officer and not to adjustment and this induction is also to be prospective and not retrospective. The application of these rules to the case or respondent No.4 and claim of seniority of the appellant is misconceived. The appellant was inducted in 1988, therefore, he could not claim seniority over respondent No.4. The appeal is misconceived and is hereby dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs and file be consigned to the record. " After that the appellant filed a petition for leave to appeal which was I granted to consider whether qualification for Instructor which was prescribed by the Rules on 3-4-1990, namely, S.S. Certificate with trade proficiency certificate from the Government Technical Training Centre or a recognized institution with six years' experience in the relevant trade was applicable to respondent No.4. In support of the above Qazi Muhammad Anwar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has vehemently contended that at the time when respondent No.4 was adjusted permanently in 1986 he did not have the above e requisite qualification which was provided under the above Rules on 3-4-1990. The above contention is not tenable as rightly observed by the Service Tribunal in the above-quoted extract from the judgment under appeal. The above f rules could not have applied retrospectively to the employees who were already permanently absorbed in the service. The appeal has no 'merit and it is dismissed. A.A./B-20/S Appeal dismissed