Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.1408 of 1983,. heard on

13th March, 1984.

(Against the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 25‑10‑1983 in Appeal No.538/1987 of 1982).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑West Pakistan Tehsildari and Naib‑Tehsildari Service Rules, 1962, r.9(1)(a)‑‑Seniority‑‑Merit assigned by Board of Revenue at time of making selection of petitioners and respondent as Tehsildars against initial recruitment‑‑Held, to hold good for determining their inter se seniority as long as they remain in service in that grade and cadre‑‑Petition not raising any question of law requiring further examination by Supreme Court‑‑Leave to appeal refused. [ Civil service]

Mahmood Khan v . Province of West Pakistan 1971 P L C (C . S. T ) 253 and Shaukat Ali v. Commissioner Sargodha 1971 P L C (C.S.T.) 271 ref.

Dr. A. Basit, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 13th March 1984.

J‑

The two petitioners who were originally recruited directly as Tehsildars, seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 25‑10‑1983, whereby a service appeal with regard to the seniority as tehsildars filed by respondent No.l was allowed and the decisions of the earlier Service Tribunal reported in Mahmood Khan v. Province of West Pakistan 1971 P L C (C.S.T.) 253 and Shaukat Ali v. Commissioner Sargodha 1971 P L C (C.S.T.) 271 were affirmed.

The respondent No.l and the two petitioners were directly recruited as Tehsildars in 1966 and in the seniority list of selectees issued by the Board of Revenue respondent No.l was placed higher to the petitioners. The petitioners cleared their departmental examination earlier to respondent No.l. The Board of Revenue in the provisional seniority list which issued placed the respondent No.l junior to the petitioners. The respondent No. 1 preferred a service appeal and pressed into service the letter of appointment, rule 9(1)(a) of the West Pakistan Tehsildari and Naib‑Tehsildari Service Rules, 1962 and the decisions of the Service Tribunal earlier rendered in the two cases already mentioned. The respondent No.l in his appeal claimed that in accordance with his letter of appointment, in accordance with the Rule applicable to the inter se seniority of the two petitioners and himself and in accordance with the decisions of the Service Tribunal interpreting the same rule of seniority. He should be declared senior to the petitioners.

The Service Tribunal found the claim of respondent No.l to be fully covered by the earlier decisions of the Predecessor Service Tribunal and found no reason to take a different view and granted the relief sought for by respondent No.l.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has taken us through the Rules with a view to canvass that a different view more favourable to the petitioner is possible. His reliance is on rule 8 and the condition prescribed in the terms and conditions of service that a selectee before his appointment had to complete and clear the departmental examination satisfactorily within the prescribed time. His contention is that the very entry of a selectee into service is dependent on his satisfactorily completing the period of training etc. and unless he does that he cannot be appointed and without being appointed to the service he cannot claim seniority over the petitioners. Once the petitioners had satisfied the terms of appointment and got an appointment into service which happened to be earlier to the appointment of the respondent No.1 a right of seniority over respondent No.l came to vest in them which could not be overridden or yield on subsequent appointment of respondent No.l to the Tehsildari service.

We have examined the rules and the view taken by the two service Tribunals with regard to its interpretation. Rule 9(1)(a) which applies to the case of the petitioners and respondent No.l is in two parts and the two parts can be reconciled only if the interpretation as given by the Service Tribunal is upheld. Besides, it appears that it is in conformity with the Rules as well as the appointment letter, which issued on selection of the petitioners and respondent No.l.

At the time of their selection and appointment as selectee Tahsildars for training not only a division‑wise category was made out of the selected trandidates but an integrated list which is called seniority list of direct Tahsildars candidates of Lahore. Multan, Rawalpindi, Sargodha and Bahawalpur divisions was drawn up on 13‑9‑1966 and circulated. The rule provides that ‑‑

"9.Seniority.‑(1) The seniority inter se of the members of the Service in the various grades thereof shall be determined‑‑

(a) in the case of members appointed by initial recruitment, in accordance with the order of merit assigned by the Board of Revenue in the case of Tahsildars and by the Commissioner of the Division in the case of Naib‑Tahsildars; provided that persons selected for the service in an earlier selection shall rank senior to the persons selected in a later selection;"

The respondent No.l claimed the same seniority against the petitioners as was assigned in order of merit prepared initially by the Board of Revenue. There is no subsequent order of merit assigned to this grout) as a group by the Board of Revenue. The interpretation of the Rules by the learned counsel amounts, in fact, to substitute the order of merit assigned by the Board of Revenue by the date of appointment of the selectees to the service. Such substitution is not warranted and the merit as assigned by the Board of Revenue at the time of making selection will hold good for determining seniority inter se of the direct recruits as long as they remain in service in that grade and cadre. We do not find that the petition raises any such question of law s may require further examination by this Court. Leave to appeal is refused.

S.Q, Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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