1974 PLP 502 (SCMR)

SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑The dispute between the parties is over seniority between the promotees and the direct recruits. The petitioners arc promotees and they have been aggrieved by the order of the N.‑W. F. F'. Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (respondent No. 1 herein) dated the 16th of October 1972, passed on the appeal filed by the direct recruits, respon dents Nos. 3 to

5. The Tribunal was of the view that the seniority of the direct recruits vis‑a‑vis the promoted officers was to be determined on the basis of their respective dates of appointment against substantive posts, namely, the dates of their confirmation. It held that the seniority list as contained in the Notifications dated the 1st of May 1970, and the 30th of June 1970, was incorrect, and accordingly allowed the appeal of the said respondents, and observed that the Government would be well‑advised to prepare the seniority list afresh with reference to the permanent strength of the cadre before the year 1968, namely, on the strength of

59. The present petition for special leave to appeal is from the order of a Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the writ petition of the petitioners from the said order of the Tribunal. The High Court held that the conclusion of the Tribunal was correct. Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has contended before us that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in asking the Government to prepare the seniority list afresh. With reference to section 8 of the North‑West Frontier Province Civil Services (Appellate Tribunals) Ordinance, 1971 he has argued that it was only in a case where no seniority list existed that the Tribunal could ask the Government to prepare the requisite seniority list. This contention appears to us to be misconceived inasmuch the Tribunal has not done the thing attributed to it. The Tribunal found that the seniority list as contained its the aforesaid two Notifications dated the 1st of May 1970, and the 30th of June 1970 was incorrect and this the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to do. The result of this finding was that of necessity, the seniority list required to be corrected, and in this context the Tribunal merely observed that the Government would be well‑advised to prepare the seniority list afresh. The learned counsel has next challenged the validity of the impugned order of the Tribunal on the ground that its effect was to disturb the con firmation of the entire cadre and not only that of the four direct recruits who preferred the appeal. We do not think there is any substance in this contention, for if the order is legal but as a result of it a situation had arisen whereby the seniority list is required to be corrected and the con. sequent benefit of the correction is extended to persons who did not appeal, the validity of the order is not affected thereby. Lastly, it has been contended that the decision in the case of Khushi Muhammad (PLD1970SC20) applied to the facts of the case, and that the learned Judges of the High Court wrongly distinguished the facts of the case on the ground that in the case under report, there did not exist any rule regarding the particular method of determining seniority as rule 9(2)(b) of the West Pakistan Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1964, in the present case. In answer to this contention it may be stated, in the first place, that the High Court held that at the time when the direct recruits joined the service and the petitioners were promoted, Integration Circular of 1955 governed their case. Paragraph 17(c) of the Integration Circular prescribed as follows:‑ "The seniority of direct recruits vis‑a‑vis promoted officers will be regulated with reference to their respective dates of appointment to the services. This date in the case of direct recruits will be the date of appointment on probation or otherwise. In the case of promoted officers it will be the date of substantive appointment." It was pointed out that none of the two Notifications dated the 1st of May 1970, and the 30th of June 1970, mentioned the date when the pro motees were appointed in the substantive appointments. The High Court further proceeded to observe that even if it was held that the West Pakistan Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1964 had superseded the said Integration Circular, rule 9(2)(b) of the said Rules would apply in the present case inasmuch as in the year 1964 all the vacancies that exceeded 59, which was the sanctioned strength of the cadre of Group `D' in 196', were temporary. This meant that the petitioners were then officiating against temporary vacancies, while the direct recruits (respondents Nos. 2 to 5) were officiating against substantive vacancies, and the latter would, therefore, rank senior to the former. In the second place the High Court was right that the case under report did not apply to the present case. In any event we do not think that any injustice has been occasioned by the impugned order of the Tribunal inasmuch the Government will now consider the question of seniority between the parties concerned, and there is no reason to believe that any party will be unjustly dealt with. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed,