1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SAAD SAOOD JAN, 1‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment dated 7‑8‑1994 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, whereby respondent No.1 and some other officers were declared senior to the petitioners.

2. The Punjab Public Service Commission held a Competitive Examination in 1972 for making initial recruitment to the Provincial Civil Service (Executive Branch). It made its recommendations to the Government in two batches. The recommendation with regard to the first batch was made on 20‑1‑1973. So far as the officers included in the first batch are concerned, there is no dispute about their seniority. As regards the second batch, hereinafter referred to as the second batch, the recommendation was sent by the Commission to the Government in July, 1973. For some reason the appointment of candidates included in the second batch was delayed and they did not join service till February, 1974. Respondent No. 1 was included in the second batch.

3. The petitioners were appointed to the Provincial Civil Service (Executive Branch) in 1974 by promotion from other cadres. In the seniority list they were assigned a higher place than the officers included in the second batch in accordance with rule 9(3). West Pakistan Civil Service (EB) Rules, 1964, which reads as follows: "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub‑rule (2), the persons appointed in a particular year, otherwise than by initial recruitment, in accordance with the provisions of rule 5, shall, in pursuance of the provisions of sub‑rule (9) of rule 5, rank senior to the persons appointed by initial recruitment during that year." Respondent No.1, agitated against the position assigned to him in the seniority list and claimed that he was senior to the petitioners but his representations did not find favour with the Government. He then filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal accepted the appeal and directed the Government to place him and the other officers included in the second batch as senior to the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the order of the )earned Tribunal the petitioners seek leave to appeal from this Court.

4. The judgment of the learned Tribunal is based upon Explanation to rule 8(2), Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, which reads as follows: "Explanation‑‑‑In case a group of persons is selected for initial appointment at one time, the earliest date on which any one out of the of all persons in the group. Similarly in case a group of persons is appointed otherwise at one time in the same office order the earliest date on which any one out of the group joined the service will be deemed to be the date of appointment of all persons in the group. And the persons in each group will be placed with reference to the continuous date of appointment as a group in order of their inter se seniority." The learned Tribunal was of the view that as the officers included in the two batches were appointed to the service on the basis of the same Competitive Examination they were to be treated as officers of the same selection within the meaning of the Explanation; consequently, the officers included in the second batch would take seniority from the earliest date when an officer included in the first batch joined service. For that reason even though members of the second batch were appointed to the service in‑1974 they were to be treated as senior to the petitioners.

5. In support of this petition it is contended that at the time when they joined service the rules containing the explanation had not yet been enforced; so far as the Punjab was concerned the right of seniority was a protected one; therefore, the subsequent amendment in the rule could not be so construed as to deprive them of the seniority which they had already acquired before the new rules came into force.

6. The contentions raised in support of this petition need examination. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted. The interim order made on 4‑10‑1994 is not continued. AA./M‑2278/S Leave granted.