1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

4. It is in these circumstances that the appellant has filed this appeal taking exceptions to the impugned order on the following grounds :‑‑ (i) That in the consolidated seniority list of Girdawars of Azad Kashmir the name of the appellant finds place at S. No. 17 whereas the name of respondent No. 2 does not figure anywhere in this seniority list. (ii) That the appellant was better qualified educationally and was senior to respondent No. 2 but the respondent was promoted is clear disregard of the seniority of the appellant violating provisions of sub‑clause (2) of Article 24 of the Kashmir Seri Regulations.

5. Finally the appellant prayed that‑ (a) he be declared senior‑respondent No. 2. (b) the promotion of the respondent No. 2 to the post of Naib‑Tehsildar be declared null and void against the rights of the appellant and respondent No. 1 be directed to promote the appellant to the post of Naib‑Tehsildar w. e. f. 15th November, 1975 with all benefits.

6. The respondent No. 2 was duly served but he failed to appear on fixed date of hearing for which reason ex parse proceedings were taken against him. The counsel for respondent No. 1 appeared and was ordered to file written objections but he did not file written objections in spite of a number of adjournments.

7. The appellant examined himself as witness and also produced document Exh. P. A. in support of his claim.

8. The arguments of the appellant and counsel for respondent No. 1 were heard and the record of the appeal was examined by us.

9. In his statement dated 2nd January, 1980 the appellant Syed Aftab Hussain Shah stated that he was promoted to the post of Naib -Tehsildar during the pendency of his appeal and as such he did not want any relief of promotion as prayed in the appeal and rather limited the scope of his appeal to the declaration of his seniority as against respondent No.

2. As stated by the appellant the question of promotion of the appellant now needs no consideration and the only point to be resolved remains the question of the seniority of the appellant viz‑a‑viz respon dent No.

2. The appellant claimed that he was appointed as Girdzwar in the Revenue Department on 16th September, 1966 and the respondent No. 2 was promoted to the post of Grdawar in 1969. In support of leis version the appellant has placed on record a copy of seniority register of Girdawar Qanoogos of District Poonch maintained from 1st July, 1972 to 30th June, 1976 (Annexure F) wherein the appellant has been shown at S. No. 9 but else name of the respondent No. 2 does not figure anywhere is this document. Similarly the name of respondent No. 2 finds no mention in the consolidated list of seniority of Girdawar of Azad Kashmir prepared by the Revenue Commissioner in 1973 whereas the name of appellant falls at S. No. 17 in this list. In both the seniority lists the date of first entry into service of appellant as Girdawar is entered as 16th September, 1966. On the other hand the appellant produced document Exh. P. A. also which is a copy of seniority list of Girdawar maintained by the Settlement Department where the respondent No. 2 was serving at the time of preparation of this list. In this list the respondent No. 2 Ch. Muhammad Aslam has been placed on S. No. 9 and date of his promotion as Girdawar is shown as 3rd February, 1967. Reading all these seniority lists together i.e. seniority list Annexure 'F' maintained by the Revenue Department seniority list Exh. P. A. maintained by the Settlement Department it becomes evident that the appellant was appoint ed as Girdawar in the Revenue Department on 16th September, 1966 whereas respondent No. 2 Ch. Muhammad Aslam was promoted to the post of Girdawar in Settlement Department on 3rd February, 1967. These entries regarding the appointment of the parties to the past of Girdawars were not rebutted by respondent No.

1. Thus there remains no doubt that the appellant was senior to respondent No. 2 at the time of promotion of the latter.

10. For the reasons stated above we hold that at the time of passing the impugned order of promotion of respondent No. 2 the appellant was senior to him in the cadre of Girdawars.

11. In the circumstances of the case no order as to costs is made. The pieties shall be informed of this order.