1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑Appellant Shah Abdur Razzaq Gillani has assailed the impugned order dated 4‑5‑1987 of respondent No.l vide which respondent No.3 a junior person was appointed as Director Agricultural Engineering Department N.W.F.‑P, Peshawar on the ground that he joined the department as Agricultural Engineer on 16‑10‑1974 after qualifying the competitive examination held by N.W.F.P. Public Service Commission and he at present is the most senior officer in the department which fact was established on the querry of the department, from the Pakistan Engineering Council. It so happened that after the retirement of one Sher Muhammad Khan from the post of Director Agricultural Engineering, N.‑W.F.P., Peshawar on 4‑1‑1986 a junior person Mr. Abdul Wahab was appointed as Director on 26‑3‑1986 as a stop‑gap arrangement. later on this appointment was discussed in the Provincial Assembly and the Government, undertook to relieve him of the job and in his place to appoint a senior person. But for the reasons best known to the respondents vide impugned order dated 4‑5‑1987 respondent No.3 the most junior person who worked as subordinate officer under the appellant was directed to take over the charge of the post temporarily, as a stop‑gap arrangement. His representation against the appointment met failure, so the present appeal, on the ground that he being the senior most officer serving as Agricultural Engineer in the Province, having no adverse entry in his ACRs, is the most deserving person for posting to the job in question and the posting of the respondent No.3 a junior person would not only discourage the senior officers but in the long run it will hamper the administration as no senior officer will feel safeguarded in such like eventuality. Besides this it also involves the financial loss to the appellant. Claim of the appellant was vehemently resisted by the respondents who raised the plea of maintainability, limitation and cause of action. It was urged by them that the appellant is not the senior most person and he figures at S.No.3 in the seniority list. Arguments were advanced and the record perused, in the light of it the appeal is disposed of as under: The Service Tribunal is fully competent to adjudicate upon the matters relating to the seniority, compulsory retirement, dismissal, removal, the ACRs etc. but the power to appoint a particular person on a particular post does not vest in it. In the present case the impugned order would show that it was a stop‑gap arrangement, however, the appellant being the senior most person, if he qualifies otherwise, may be considered for this post because in the long run the respondent No.3 under the Fundamental/ Financial Rules can claim the pay of the post against which he is working and this would automatically harm the interest of the appellant. The appointment of a junior person, on a higher post, is apt to affect adversely the working of the department and it creates a sense of frustration, confusion, in‑efficiency, in‑subordination and lack of interest in the performance of the duty. It is not understandable as to why the said post has not been filled so far permanently and the administration is being run temporarily as a stop‑gap arrangement. With the above observation we dismiss the appeal, leaving the parries to bear their own costs. S.Q./71/Sr.N Appeal dismissed.