Find a Lawyer

Case No. 14/7 of 1971.

Bahawalpur Slate Kanungo Service Rules, 1940, rr. 5, 6 &14 and West Pakistan Kanungo Service (Northern Zone) Rules, 1964, r. 9 ‑ Seniority ‑ List of approved candidates ‑ Not relevant for purpose of seniority of person appointed as Kanungo‑.Person once appointed as Kanungo to be governed for purpose of seniority by r. 14, Bahawalpur Stare Kanungo Service Rules, 1940 or r. 9 of West Pakistan Kanungo Service Vorehern Zone Rules, 1964‑Ratio of‑direct recruits provided in r. 5(I)(iv)‑‑Not, mandatory Person once appointed as Kanungo even on basis of list of approved candi dates prepared in violation of such ratio‑Cannot be reverted due to revision of list of approved candidates.

By this appeal under sec tion 8 (1) of the Punjab Civil Services (Appellate Tribunal Ordi nance), 1970, Muhammad Sadiq, Kanungo, prays that the order of the Commissioner, dated 19‑10‑1970 may be set aside and the list of seniority ordered to be amended so as to place the appellant at S. No. 12 instead of No. 15 in the A Class list of direct appointees at No. 36 instead of No. 39 in the combined list of Kanungo candidates.

The respondents to the appeal are the Government of Punjab, the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar, Abdul Latif, Muhammad Ramzan, Muhammad Saghir Ashraf, Faiz Ahmad Chishti, Muhammad Rafiq, Abdal Aziz, Abdul Majid, Muhammad aslam, Abdul Hamid, Ghulam Rasool, Muhammad Bakhsh Kanungoes and Iftikhar Ali, Naib Tehsildar, respondents Nos. 1 to 14. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are not represented before us, though parawise comments have been filed on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner. Respondents Nos. 8 and 11 are represented by Mr. Asad Ullah Siddiqui, Advocate, Mr. Aslam Chatha, Advocate represents respondents Nos. 7, 9, 12 and 13. No other respondent was present before us.

It was on the 20th of March 1955 that the appellant, as selected as approved Kanungo candidate and his name was entered at S. No. 42 In the Registrar of Approved Kanungoes of Bahawal nagar District. He underwent the necessary training and passed the departmental examination on 24‑1‑1956. Meanwhile, in October, 1955 he was appointed as Patwari, which he remained up to 5‑3‑1967. On 2‑3‑1967, he was appointed as Girdawar Kanungo against a vacant post and took over on ti‑3‑1967. In consequence of letter dated 24‑10‑1969, addressed by the Direct, of Land Records, Northern Zone, West Pakistan, to the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar, pointing out that the names of Kanungo candidates had been entered in the Register of Approve; Kanungo Candidates in contravention of rule 6 and 5 (v) of the former Bahawalpur State Kanungo Service Rules, 1940, when, there were 35 posts of permanent Kanungoes against which permanent and 31 Kanungo candidates were officiating as Field Kanungoes for about 12 years, and there should be 14 direct Kanungo candidates and 29 from the Patwar Class, but there were 81 Kanungo candidates on the District List, and as such names; 38 Kanungo candidates were liable to be removed from the District List, the list of Kanungo candidates was revised. As u result of the new list of Kanungo candidates, Rana Abdul Majid was promoted provisionally and posted as Naib Sadar Kanungo in place of the appellant, who was reverted, on the ground that he was a junior hand and he was directed to report to the Tehsil Bahawalnagar for his appointment as a Patwari. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner against his reversion, but appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner by his letter date 19‑10‑1970 which order is impugned by the appellant in this appeal. However, on 12‑6‑1970, the appellant was again posted as Peshi Kanungo, having been treated as a Kanungo candidate.

We have seen the lists of approved Kanungo candidates furnished to us by the Collector, Bahawalaagar along with his written statement and find that names of Kanungo candidates, both direct and promotees, have been entered in these lists in accordance with the dates of enlistment. The maintenance of lists of approved Kanungo candidates was directed by rule 6 of the Bahawalpur State Kanungo Service Rules, 1940. These Rules does not provide any criterion for fixation of seniority, but there can be no objection to seniority amongst the approved candidates being according to the date of entry of their names in the Register. However seniority as' approved candidate is not to be confused with the seniority as member of the Service on appointment as Kanungo. An approved candidate, on appointment as Kanungo, becomes a member of the, the service under the 1940 Bahawalpur State Rules as well as under the West Pakistan Kanungo Service (Northern Zone) Rules, 1964 which came into force on 18th November, 1964. It was after the promulgation of these rules that the appellant was appointed as Kanungo. These rules do not contemplate the maintenance of an approved list of candidates or a list of approved candidates from which selection of the direct recruits has to be made. Since the 1940‑Rules were not repealed by the West Pakistan Rules of 1964, it is possible for a Register of Kanungo Candidates to be main tained under the 1940‑Rules to assist in the selection of Kanungo as direct recruits, but seniority in the Register of Approved Candidates is not relevant for purposes of demoting one who has been appointed as Kanungo, as the appellant was in this case. Seniority as Kanungo was governed by rule 14 of the 1940‑Rules and under the 1964‑Rules by rule 9. Since the appellant was appointed after the promulgation of 1964‑Rules, rule 9 would govern his seniority. This rule provides for order of merit assigned by the appointing authority to determine seniority in the case of members appointed by initial recruitment provided that persons selected for the Service in an, earlier selection shall rank senior to the persons selected in a later selection. Thus in the case of the appellant, his seniority in Service vis‑a‑vis the direct recruits shall be governed by the date of selection as no order of merit is available. His seniority via‑a‑via promotees will be governed by sub‑rule (2) of rule 9 of the 1964‑Rules, which pro vides as under :‑

"(2) The seniority in the various grades of the Service of the members appointed by initial recruitment vis‑a‑vis those appointed otherwise shall be determined‑

(a) in case both the official appointed by initial recruitment and the official appointed otherwise have been appointed against substantive vacancies or both 'have been appointed against temporary vacancies, with reference to the date of appointment to such vacancy in the case of the official appointed by initial recruitment and to the date of continuous appointment against such vacancy in the case of the official appointed otherwise; provided that if the two dates are the same, the official appointed otherwise shall rank senior to the official appointed by initial recruitment l ;

(b) in case the official appointed by initial recruitment has been appointed against a substantive vacancy and the official appointed _ otherwise has , been appointed against a temporary vacancy, the official appointed by initial recruitment shall rank senior to the official appointed otherwise; and

(c) in case the official appointed otherwise is appointed against a substantive vacancy and the official appointed by initial recruitment is appointed against a temporary vacancy, the official appointed otherwise shall rank senior to the official appointed by initial recruitment."

Out of the respondents, Mr. Iftikhar Ali having been directly appointed as Naib‑Tehsildar, the appellant cannot have any claim of seniority over him. The appellant does not even press for his seniority to be determined qua him. Out of the remaining respondents, Abdul Latif, Muhammad Ramzan, Muhammad Saghir Ashraf and Faiz Ahmad, respondents Nos. 3 to 6 are direct recruits, while the remaining respondents are promotees. Determining the seniority of the appellant under rule 9 (1) (a) qua the direct recruits, Abdul Latif, respondent No. 3 was selected earlier than the appellant and is thus senior to him. The others having been selected later are junior to him.

As regards the seniority of the appellant vis‑a‑vis the pro motees, it is to be settled under sub‑rule (2) of rule 9. Since there were only 4 permanent vacancies of Kanungo and the remaining would be deemed to have bean appointed to temporary vacancies and their seniority would be determined by rule 9 (2) (a) with reference to the date of appointment to the vacancies in the case of officials appointed by initial recruitments and to the date of continuous appointment against the vacancies in the case of officials appointed otherwise. This date of the appellant was 6‑3‑1969 while the date of continuous appointment of Muhammad Rafiq and Abdul Aziz being 26‑11‑1966 and 23‑11‑1966, respec tively, was earlier. The date of continuous appointment of other respondents being later than 6‑3‑1967, they are junior than the appellant under the rules.

It appears to us that the reference by the Director of Land Records dated 24‑10‑1969 was misconceived. In the first instance, it may be pointed out that under the 1940‑Rules, lists of approved candidates had to be maintained under rule 6 and it was under rule 5 (I) (iv) that the ratio of the number of direct recruits was provided. This sub‑rule provided the ratio " as far as may be practicable " and not in mandatory form, and the rule provided that as far as may be practicabl6 the number by direct recruitment of field Kanungoes under rule 5.1 (1) (c) should not exceed 25%, and in the next sub‑rule provided that as a general rule the total number of candidates selected under rule 5.1 (b) and (c) i.e. from Patwaries in service and by direct recruitment) should not exceed 33 % of the number of field Kanungoes in the District. The ratio was not so binding as to affect the validity of appointments mane as Kanungo even though made from a list prepared in violation of the ratio. As already mentioned, the maintenance of a list of candidates was the requirement of the 1940‑Rules but 1s no more required by the 1964‑Rules and under the 1964‑Rules there is no definite restriction in the way of the appointing authority selecting a Kanungo from outside the approved list. Therefore, it is not seniority in the approved list, which is material but seniority in the rank of Kanungo for purposes of determine in whether one is senior or junior to another. Seniority in the rank of Kanungo can only decide the question whether a person who has been appointed as Kanungo should continue or revert. The revision of the list of approved Kanungo candidates can have no bearing on the question as to who should revert from among Kanungo if it be found necessary to reduce the incumbents of the posts, but it appears in this case that reversion of the appellant was ordered in consequence of revision of the old list of approved candidates and on the preparation of a new list. We are unfor tunately not in possession of the lists and have been unable to discover how from a position of seniority the appellant was reduced to a position of juniority and thus removed from the rank of Kanungo. The order expressly says that he has been removed because he was a junior hand. When he was ordered to report to the Tehsildar Bahawalnagar for his appointment as Patwari, he was being reverted on the ground of his being junior according to the lists of approved Kanungo candidates which have no bearing on the question whether he was senior or junior as Kanungo or not. We find in fact that he was not junior to these respondent, who were directly recruited except for Abdul Latif. Therefore, it appears to us that his reversion should not have been ordered In the circumstance of the case. It is, therefore, in our view a fit case in which the break in his service should he condoned by a proper order by the competent authority so that he can count his continuous service from 6‑3‑1967. An objection has been raised that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of reversion, but we are not setting aside the order of reversion. We are only recommending that the break in his service as a result of a misconceived order, should be remedied by the com petent authority. We are making this order :n view of the fact that the order of reversion was made in the mistaken belief that the . appellant was the Junior most, i.e., in a matter affecting seniority.

We would like to make it clear that the seniority which we have determined under the rules is in the rank of Kanungo and not as Kanungo candidate. When any candidate 'has been appointed to the Service, he becomes a member of the Service and his seniority is to be determined by the rules applicable to his case.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.