1997 PLP 1365 (SCMR)

SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑This order will govern the disposal of abovementioned 3 petitions for leave to appeal which arise out of the same impugned order of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 20‑3‑1995. The petitioners in the above petitions alongwith several others appeared in the competitive examination held by the Federal Public Service Commission (F.P.S.C.) in the year 1985. Out of the successful candidate 10 probationers of 1985 competitive examination were nominated for service in the Postal Group. However, out of them only 3 probationers joined the postal service while remaining 7 did not join. The F.P.S.C, nominated the petitioners, who were also probationers of 1985, in place of those 7 nominees who were originally nominated for postal service but they did not join, in the year 1987. The offer of appointment issued to the petitioners contained the following conditions:‑‑ .. (vii) Your appointment will take effect from the date of joining the Civil Services Academy, Lahore. However, your seniority will not be disturbed i.e. you will rank senior to the probationers of competitive examination, 1986. " It appears that a dispute arose between the petitioners and the private respondents in the above 3 petitions with regard to their seniority in B.P.S.17. Respondent No.4 Muhammad Masood Shaukat (in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal 387 of 1995) was promoted in B.P.S.17 on acting charge on 9‑2‑1982 and his acting charge was regularized on 17‑12‑1987. The respondent No.4 in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.398 of 1995 (S.M. Hasnain) was promoted in B.P.S. 17 on acting charge on 2‑81985 and his appointment was regularized on 17‑9‑1987, similarly, respondent No.5 in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.388 of 1995 (Samina Sulernan) was also promoted in BPS‑17 on acting charge basis or. 5‑8‑1985 and her appointment was regularized on 26‑8‑1989. Respondent No.4 in Civil Petition for leave to Appeal No.388 of 1995 was however, given presumptive promotion in BPS‑17 alongwith the promotees of 1987 by the competent authority vide order dated 7‑8‑1991. Since the actual induction of the petitioners in postal service was also in the year 1987, they objected to the seniority list prepared by the department in which private respondents in the above 3 petitions were shown senior to them. The contention of the petitioners before the department as well as before the Service Tribunal was that in their appointment letter they were clearly given assurance that their seniority will not be disturbed and that they shall rank senior to the probationers of competitive examination 1986. It was, accordingly, contended by the petitioners that they being senior to those who were inducted in the service as probationers of competitive examination 1986, they could not be placed junior to those who, were inducted in the postal service by promotion in the year 1987 . Mr. Hafiz S.A. Rehman, the learned counsel for the caveator in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.388 of 1995 on the other hand opposed the grant of leave in the above. petitions and contended that the condition contained in the offer of appointment dated 27‑10‑1987 relied by the petitioners only resolved the question of seniority between the probationers of 1985 and 1986 and this condition has no bearing on the seniority of the petitioners qua the departmental promotees. It is, accordingly, contended by the learned counsel for the caveator that the petitioners and the private respondents in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.388 of 1995 having been promoted in the same year, under the Rules. of Seniority the departmental promotees would rank senior to the direct recruits. We are inclined to grant leave in the above cases to consider the contention of the petitioners, whether by virtue of declaring the petitioners senior to the probationers of 1986 they were also entitled to claim seniority against those who joined postal service in the years 1986 and 1987. The above proposition of law appears to be of general importance and is likely to affect large number of employees in the Government service, There is an application for grant of status quo order in their cases. We are not inclined to grant status quo at this stage. However, it is clarified that any promotion made meanwhile will be subject to the result of these appeals. A.A./N.470/S Leave granted.