Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 697 of 1979, decided on 1st December, 1980.
(On appeal from the order of Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 16‑5‑1979 in Case No. 338/96 of 1975).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑
-----Art. 212(3), Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4 and West Pakistan Civil Servants (Executive Branch) Rules, 1964, r. 5(5) Seniority‑Seniority inter se‑ of direct recruits and promotees, to Provincial Civil Service‑Claim of petitioners (formerly Naib Tehsildars), to have their names approved by Public Service Com mission, based on no provision of law or rule applicable‑In absence of law or rule governing situation, held, petitioners could not claim nor could Service Tribunal ante‑date for purpose of their seniority date of their actual appointment and give them seniority from a period when they were in fact not appointed to post or to service‑No legal error committed by Service Tribunal Petition dismissed.‑[Civil service].
Ch. Muhtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Date of hearing : 2nd December, 1980.
‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 16‑5‑1979 whereby their appeal against seniority assigned to them in the P. C. S. was dismissed.
2. The petitioners who were originally Naib‑Tehsildars, were con sidered alongwith the Tebsildars for bringing their names on Select List 'A' in terms of rule 5(5) of the West Pakistan Civil Servants (Executive Branch) Rules, 1964, for their appointment to the P. C. S. Their case was sent to the Public Service Commission and received its approval. The Tehsildars were appointed to the P. C. S. in July, 1973. In respect of the Naib‑Tebsildars so approved there was a reconsideration of the policy of their promotion and recruitment and in the process their promotion was delayed by about 14 months. In July, 1974 the petitioners were promo ted. In the meantime, the Government had recruited 32 persons as direct recruits in the P. C. S. The petitioners were shown junior to the direct recruits. Their case before the Tribunal was that they like the Tehsildars, should have been appointed to the P. C. S. as and when the Public Service Commission approved of their being put on the Select 'A' and the Tehsildars were appointed to the service. If that were to be done they would get seniority over the direct recruits. The delay in their appointment, according to them, was not on account of any conduct on their part but on account of the failure or vacillation of the Government to decide about the policy of recruitment by promotion. The Tribunal examined the rules applicable to the case of the petitioners and held that their appointment could not be taken back to a date earlier than their appointment and from that date the rules of seniority applicable justified their being placed below direct recruits who were recruited earlier. Hence the appeal was dismissed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the applicability or the interpretation of the rule of seniority applied to the situation for determining the inter se seniority of the direct recruits and the promotees which has in fact been applied to them as well as to the promotee Tehsildars. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Public Service Commission having finalized the promotion of the petitioners alongwith the Tehsildars in the year 1973 they should be deemed to have been appointed to the service alongwith the Tehsildars and their seniority should have been reckoned from that selection.
4. The rules of seniority being not in dispute nor the date of actual appointment of the petitioners the application of the rules presents no problem. The Service Tribunal had dealt with it correctly. The claim of the petitioners to have their appointments ante‑dated to the time when the Tehsildars were appointed or when their names were approved by the Public, Service Commission is based on no provision of law or rule applicable to their case. . In the absence of any provision of law or rule governing the situation they could not claim nor could the Service Tribunal within its powers ante‑date for the purposes of their seniority the date of their actual appointment and give them seniority from a period when they were in fact not appointed to the post or to the Service. We find that no legal error has been committed by the Tribunal. The petition is therefore dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer