P L D 1959 (W (PLP)

The name of Mr. K. U. Siddiqui, respondent No. 4, is not given in this list.

4. The dates on which these officers began officiating as Meteorologists are as follows :‑ Mr. N. A. Qureshi, Petitioner 12th of May 1949. Mr. Muhammad Kalil Khan respondent No. 3. 12th of May 1949. Mr. K. U. Siddiqui, respondent No. 4. 28th of Sept. 1949. Mr. Rahmat Ullah, respondent No. 5. 3rd of November 1951 Mr. A. Q. Khan, respondent No. 6 17th of June 1952.

5. The history of the case, which is, given in paragraph No. 9 of the counter‑affidavit on behalf of the Government (Page 173 of the file) and which is not denied by the petitioner, is that the seniority list of the 15th of August 1947, came up for scrutiny before the Departmental Promotion Committee which met on the 22nd of December 1948, under the chairmanship of the Chairman, Pakistan Public Service Commission, and that this Committee decided that only one officer in this list, namely, Mr. Muhammad Khalil Khan, respondent No. 3, was fit for pro motion to the post of Meteorologist and that other officers on the list, including the petitioner, were not fit. For the purpose of confirmation in the grade of Assistant Meteorologist, however, the seniority list was radically altered, and so far as the parties go, it stood as follows :‑ (3) Mr. N. A. Qureshi, petitioner. (4) Mr. S. T. Husain, respondent No. 2. (9) Mr. Abdul Qadir Khan, respondent No. 6.

6. Mr. K. U. Siddiqui and Mr. Rahmat Ullah do not figure in this list apparently because they are direct recruits.

7. The Director of the Meteorologist Services, however, represented to the Government that it was not possible for him to run the Department unless he were allowed to promote four Assistant Meteorologists, apart from Mr. Muhammad Khalil Khan. Accordingly, the Government promoted the first four officers on the list, including Mr. N. A. Qureshi, the petitioner. Their appointment, however, was tentative. On the 29th of December 1949, the Departmental Promotion Committee met a second time and re‑arranged the list of Assistant Meteorologists so as to restore completely the order of seniority, with the result that when three years later Mr. Abdul Qadir Khan, respondent No. 6, was promoted, he was made senior to the petitioner.

8. The petitioner's counsel having now ascertained that Mr. Muhammad Khalil Khan, respondent No. 3, was declared by the Departmental Promotion Committee to be the only suitable person for the post of Meteorologist, does not challenge his seniority and confines himself only to Mr. Abdul Qadir Khan, respondent No.

6. As between him and the petitioner we see no justification for maintaining his seniority except that in the list of August 1947, he was shown at a place higher than the petitioner as Assistant Meteorologist. When, however, the Departmental Promotion Committee first met and revised the list, it must be presumed that the revision was based on merit, and as the petitioner started officiating as Meteorologist since the 12th of May 1949, he has a clear seniority of three years over Mr. Abdul Qadir Khan. The restoration of Mr. Abdul Qadir Khan to his original position on the Assistant Meteorologists' list may have been a gesture of kindness enabling him to be promoted when there was a vacancy, but since there is no rule that a person who is senior in the lower post should be regarded senior even in the higher post, irrespective of the date of pro motion, there was no justification for holding Mr. Abdul Qadir Khan senior to the petitioner. Once a decision has been taken on good grounds, if it is subsequently altered notwithstanding that the grounds remain unaltered, the person affected by the alteration will have a good reason to feel aggrieved.

9. We, therefore, accept the petition in respect of Mr. Abdul Qadir Khan and direct that the petitioner be made senior to him. The petitioner will be entitled to costs against Mr. Abdul Qadir Khan and the Government.

10. On behalf of Mr. K. U. Siddiqui and Rahmat Ullah, respondents Nos. 4 and 5, the decision of Government taken during the pendency of the petition declaring them junior to the petitioner was challenged on the ground that they were direct recruits whose seniority, vis‑a‑vis the petitioner, was determined on a different principle. We are not going into that question because the representative of Government has not had notice of this contention and we do not possess an authenticated list of Meteorologists showing appointments category‑wise. It will be open to them to contest the petitioner's seniority in a separate petition. A. H. Order accordingly.