1985 PLP (C (PLC)

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑Syed IshfaquI Hassan, Assistant Registrar, Co‑operative Societies (RRC&AM), Punjab, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, for the correction of seniority list of Assistant Registrars' Co‑operative Depart ment Punjab, as stood on Ist January, 1974, which was prepared by the Department wherein respondents Nos. 3 to 8 were shown senior to the appellant. He has impleaded the Government of the Punjab through the Secretary, Co‑operative Department Civil Secretariat, Punjab, Lahore, Registrar, Co‑operative Societies Punjab, Lahore, S. Hamid Ahmad Shah, Noor Ahmad, Akh. Muhammad Zafarullah, Ch. Muhammad Din, Mian Qadir Bakhsh and Abdul Majid Bhatti, as respondents. 2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the seniority list of 1st January, 1984, be set aside qua the respondents so impleaded. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed on 23rd January, 1961, as Inspector, Co‑operative Societies in the Co‑operative Department, Lahore. In the seniority list of 31st December, 1971 the appellant was placed at serial No. 92 and respondents Nos. 3 to 8 at serial No. 93 to 98, respectively. Similarly in seniority list of 1976, the appellant enjoyed the position of seniority over respondents. In the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held in the year 1979, the case of the appellant was considered but was deferred due to the reason of non‑receipt of A. C. R. in the year 1980. In the same meeting respondents Nos. 3 to 8 were promoted as Assistant Registrars in the year 1979. When appellant came to know about A. C. R. of 1977 containing adverse remarks, he made representation to respondent No. 2 for expunction of the same. On his representation the respondent was pleased to expunge the remarks and order was conveyed to the appellant vide letter dated 15th December, 1982. However, in January, 1984, seniority list of Assistant Registrars was pre pared by the Department wherein respondents Nos. 3 to 8 were shown senior to the appellant and were placed at serial Nos. 48 to 54 whereas the appellant was placed at serial No. 90. Having come to know of this situation the appellant made a representation for the correction of the seniority list to the Assistant Registrar, Co‑operative Societies, but respondent No. 1 vide his letter, dated 15th August, 1984, was pleased to reject the same. Hence this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learn ed District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the entire record of this case carefully with their assistance. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the adverse remarks recorded in the A. C. R. of 1977 were never communicated to the appellant and when the same was ultimately expunged the obvious conclusion would be that the A. C. R. remarks never existed on the record of the appellant, therefore, the appellant should have been promoted from 6th November, 1979. The grievance of the appellant is that he has been con demned unheard. 6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the parawise comments submitted by the Registrar, Co‑operative Societies Punjab, Lahore and contesting respondents 3 to 8 have placed their written statements on record which have also been fully supported by the learned District Attorney. Learned District Attorney has taken two preliminary objections as under :‑ (1) That the appellant being at serial No. 90 of the seniority list, he has failed to implead the persons who were shown at serial Nos. 55 to 89 of the seniority list, therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non‑joinder of the necessary parties. (2) That the appeal would be time‑barred by the act of his estoppal. 7. With regard to the merits of the case it has been submitted that the appellant has misstated the facts and his plea that his case was deferred for promotion is untenable on the ground that he stood superseded in the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee held in 1979, therefore, he would only be entitled to the seniority from the year 1981, when he was so promoted, In this manner it was argued that his case would be considered only, w.e.f. 18th April, 1981, the date he started officiating as Assistant Registrar, Co‑operative Societies. 8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that in the seniority list as stood on 31st December, 1971, 1st January, 1976 the appellant was placed senior to respondents Nos. 3 to 8 but as a result of representation made by Malik Noor Ahmad respondent No. 4, the Registrar, Co‑operative Societies, Punjab, Lahore, vide Order No. RCS/EA‑111/7155‑68, dated 31st March, 1981, revised the seniority list in accordance with the merit assigned on account of result of the 1962 class. We have further persued the proceedings of the Depart mental Promotion Committee held in the year 1979 and find that he was considered for promotion alongwith others by the aforesaid Committee in its meeting held on 4th November, 1979, but he was superseded as per Government Order No. SOC(11I)3‑2/75 (Part lI), dated 4th November, 1979, being unsuitable for promotion, whereas respondents 3 to 8 were promoted as Assistant Registrars, Co‑operative Societies vide Government order bear ing same number and date 5th November, 1979. It was on 25th October, 1980, that his case was reconsidered but was deferred for want of A. C. R. for the year 1980. On 18th April, 1981 his case was considered and he was promoted as Assistant Registrar, Co‑operative Societies (BS‑16), w.e.f. 18th April 1981. We have further perused the qua contention of the appellant that adverse remarks of A. C. R. for the year 1977 were not communicated to him and find that the same were duly communicated to him through registered A. D. post by the Principal, Co‑operative Training College, Faisalabad vide his letter No. 4629/CTC, dated 16th October, 1978. A further perusal of his A. C. R. dossier reveals that he has adverse remarks for the years 1962, 1964; 1969, 1971, 1972, 1974 and 1975, against which he made no representation and were still existing on record. However, in connection with his Efficiency Bar case falling due to him on 1st December, 1981, it was decided to re‑communicate to him the adverse remarks recorded in his A. C. R. for the year 1977, which was done vide letter No. RCS/ EA‑1/13237, dated 9th September, 1982. It is also on record that when his representation for adverse remarks of 1977 came before the authority, the adverse remarks in question were expunged vide No. RCS/FA‑1/74‑N/19222, dated 15th December, 1982, and he was allowed to cross Efficiency Bar from the due date vide Government Order No. SO(E)1‑1/81, dated 27th January, 1983. 9. The claim of the appellant for pro forma promotion is not a claim by right accrued to him in terms of rule 9(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, and it would always be within the discretion of the competent authority to grant such promotion on the basis of record of a civil servant. 10. In view of the above analysis of his case, it is firmly established that firstly the appellant lost seniority as Inspector, Co‑operative Societies over respondents Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, with the order of Registrar, Co‑opera tive Societies, Punjab, Lahore, dated 31st March, 1981 and 2nd February, 1984 and secondly as Assistant Registrar, Co‑operative Societies, with the issuance of Government order, dated 4th November 1979, according to which he stood superseded, as he was not found suitable for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee, he would not be in a position to claim seniority qua‑contesting respondents in this case. 11. The result is we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. A. E Appeal dismissed.