1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Muhammad Arshad 7‑12‑1983 7661‑89 Mirza Sajjad Beg 12‑4‑1984 16‑10‑1988 7662‑89 Muhammad Noor Malik 12‑4‑1984 4‑3‑1987 7675‑89 Muhammad Zaman Oazi 31‑3‑1984 4‑3‑1987 7676‑89 Maqbool Ahmad 16‑8‑1983 6‑1‑1987 7791‑89 Yaqoob Elahi Joya 7‑12‑1983 8‑5‑1988

4. Contention of the petitioners is that they were eligible to be considered for promotion as Assistant Engineers/Sub‑Divisional Officers in BS‑17 on regular basis but in the absence of determination of inter se seniority of Sub‑Engineers in BS‑16, they were posted as Sub‑Divisional Officers on current charge basis. It is stated that even the current charge appointments of the petitioners were terminated with immediate effect. Termination orders in all the cases except in the case of Mirza Sajjad Beg, petitioner in Writ Petition No.7661‑89 were passed on 18‑10‑1989. Current charge appointment of Mirza Sajjad Beg was, however, terminated vide order dated 14‑11‑1989.

4. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the orders terminating their current charge appointments. They also made a grievance that the department was not making appointments by promotion on regular basis because it had not finalized the inter se seniority of the Sub‑Engineers in BS‑

16. According to the petitioners, keeping in view the dates of their induction in BS‑16, they had become entitled to be regularly promoted as Sub‑Divisional Officers (BS‑17) from the dates their juniors were promoted. All the petitioners have accordingly prayed that the orders terminating their current charge 'appointments be declared to be without lawful authority. They also sought a direction to promote them as Sub -Divisional Officers in BS‑17 on regular basis from the dates from which they were legitimately entitled to be regularly promoted. They also prayed for a direction to be issued to the respondent "to frame the seniority list of Sub- Engineers (BS‑16) of the Department so as to comply with the legal obligation of adhering to the 20% quota for the promotees and consideration by D.P.C. in accordance with their seniority in BPS‑16",

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Advocate‑General. The learned Advocate‑General defended the impugned order by relying upon Sub‑Rule (2) of Rule 10‑B of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 which reads as follows:‑‑ "(2) An appointment made on current charge basis shall come to an end on appointment of a person on regular basis or on the expiry of six months whichever is earlier." The learned Advocate‑General submitted that the petitioners were allowed to hold the post of S.D.Os. on current charge basis which appointment could not last for more than six months. In his submission, the extensions granted to the petitioners were contrary to the aforementioned sub‑rule (2). He also pointed out that the impugned orders terminating their current charge appointments were necessitated because of the appointments of selectees from Public Service Commission. This position could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Be that as it may, petitioners could not be allowed to continue on current charge basis indefinitely.

6. As regards the petitioners' grievance that the inter se seniority of Sub -Engineers in BS‑16 was not being finalized, suffice it to observe that the Section Officer made a statement in this Court on 7‑2‑1993 in Writ Petition No.5509 of 1991 that the authorities had prepared a final seniority list of Sub -Engineers of Grade‑16 copy of which he also placed on the record of that case and it was pointed out that the petitioners in that writ petition had challenged the same before the Service Tribunal. Petitioners in these cases may also challenge the seniority list in question before the Service Tribunal, if they feel aggrieved thereof and if so advised. Needless to observe that the disputes relating to the seniority can only be raised before the Service Tribunal which has exclusive jurisdiction in such matters by virtue of Article 212 of the Constitution. As regards the petitioners' claim that they were eligible to be considered for promotion as Assistant Engineers on regular basis but was not considered owing to the absence of the proper seniority list of Sub‑Engineers in Grade‑16, suffice it to observe that since the promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer is to be made on the basis of seniority‑cum‑fitness, petitioner can agitate his claim before the relevant authorities after the dispute with respect to the seniority is finally decided by the Service Tribunal. In view of the position afore stated, I find no merit in these petitions which are dismissed but with no order as to costs. H.B.T./A‑651/L Petition dismissed.