1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Muhammad Latif Khan, Special Government Pleader for Respondent. Jan Muhammad Khan for Respondent No.

2. Date of institution: 7th September, 1987. MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑ Appellants feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 2fi‑8‑1987 passed by respondent No. 1 rejecting their representation for the correction of final seniority list, issued vide Notification No. SOI (S & (S & GAD) 4‑242/86' dated 15‑7 1987 have moved ‑this Tribunal through the present appeal, alleging therein that appellant No. 1 joined the P.C.S. (EB) on 6‑1‑1900 while appellant No. 2 was an employee of the ex‑Swat State recruited on 23‑8‑1947. His services were later on regularized after the merger of the Swat State in the Province of N.‑W.F.P. and he was placed in grade‑17 on 1‑5‑1960. Respondent No. 2 was also ex‑State employee of Chital and lie joined the N.‑W.F.P. Government in grade‑17 on 16-8‑1960. He was accordingly junior to both the appellants. They were appointed on regular basis in grade‑18 vide Notification No. SOI (S & GAD) 4‑51/74 dated 4 7‑1975 but no such like order appears qua respondent No. 2 prior to their regularization. It so happened that Provincial Government forwarded a few names of grade‑18 officers including the appellants and respondent No. 2 for their selection and promotion to BPS‑

19. The same were recommended by tile Provincial Selection Board on 18‑5‑1983 but the Worthy Authority‑maintained that the case of the appellants be re‑submitted to him after 6 months but the Provincial Govt. failed to do so and instead their names were again referred to the Provincial Selection Committee on 17‑3‑198.1. In this case the appellants were placed in an inferior position than respondent No.2 vide Notification dated 15‑7 1987. The representation was made to the Provincial Government by the appellants who rejected the same; hence the present appeal on the ground that the appellants were senior to respondent No. 2 in grade‑17 and grade‑

18. Their case was jointly recommended by Selection Board for grade‑19 so they could not be relegated to a junior position in grade‑

19. They we were recommended in one batch and under the law were senior than respondent No.

2. The order of their seniority could not be amended without cogent reasons and notice to them. This has adversely affected them. Both the respondents submitted separate written statements controvert the plea of the appellants. The record perused and the arguments heard. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that they were senior in all respect than respondent No.

2. They Joined the Ex‑PCS Cadre earlier than him. They were recommended by the Provincial Selection Board with respondent No. 2 in the same batch and the authority is bound to give cogent reasons for his dis agreement with the Board. In the instant case the authority endorsed that the case of the appellants be submitted after G months while he approved the name of respondent No. 2 in grade‑

19. Besides this they also placed reliance on Notification No. SOS (S & GAD) 2(3)/71, dated (i‑I‑1982 wherein the appellants were shown senior than respondent No.

2. On the other hand learned Special Govt. Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 argued that discretion lies with the authority to approve a particular person for a particular job. There is no check on his powers to select any one from amongst the members of the batch, recommended by the Provincial Selection Board. However they argued that respondent No. 2 was promoted earlier thin the appellants. They relied on Notification No. SOS‑II (S & GAD) 2‑50/73, dated ‑1‑1‑7982 vide which the date of promotion of respondent No. 2 was 29‑8‑197‑1 while the appellants were promoted to grade‑18 on 4‑7‑1975. They failed to challenge the said Notification and now they cannot claim seniority on the ground that they were recommended in one batch with respondent No.

2. We have given our patient thought to the arguments and have gone through the record with their assistance. It is clear that the authority under the law is bound' to give the grounds/reasons of his disagreement with recommendation given by the Provincial Selection Board. Notwithstanding the fact that it is an advisory body, the authority cannot overlook the recommendations without any sufficient ground. However, the glowing aspect of the case is that the appellants failed to challenge the vires of the Notification No. SOS (S & GAD) 2‑50/73, dated 4‑1‑1982 vide which respondent No. 2 was given promotion in grade‑18 from 29‑8‑1974 in super session of the early Notification dated 22‑G‑1980, the appellant could not say that they were unaware of the said Notification because a Government employee is deemed to be aware of any of the Notifications, circulars, letters or any other instrument, affecting his rights adversely. Notification dated 6‑1‑1982 bearing No. SOS‑11 (S & GAD) 2‑3/71 is not relevant in the present case, because it pertains to selection grade and it has got no hearing upon the seniority of the appellants over respondent No.

2. On the basis of the above we have got no alternative but to dismiss the present appeal; leaving the parties to bear their own cost File be consigned to Record Room. S.Q./84/Sr. N. Appeal dismissed.