Find a Lawyer

Case No. 500/1884 of 1982, decided on 14th June, 1983.

‑‑ S. 4 and Punjab Civil Servants Act, (VIII of 1974), S. 21 read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 139‑Seniority‑Appeal before Tribunal questioning seniority list‑Limi tation‑Starts from date of circulation of seniority list‑Notification of Seniority list amounts to information to all concerned‑Seniority list prepared by Administrative Secretary and issued in name of Governor‑Not open to any representation being in name of Governor and deemed to be an order from Governor‑Any represen tation against such seniority list, held, would be an exercise in futility ‑Appeal filed after one year and 10 months of notification of impugned seniority list, held, time‑barred.

Ch. Hamiduddin for Appellants.

A. G. Humayun, D. A. for Respondent No. 1.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for the Remaining Respondents.

‑Ch. Nazir Ahmad and 26 others have filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which they have impleaded the Government of the Punjab through Secretary Education, Punjab Civil Secretariat. Lahore and 64 others as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal they have prayed that the impugned seniority list placed as Annexure E', be declared to be illegal and of no legal effect as against the vested right of seniority of the appellants who merit to be shown at Serial Nos. 37 to 79 thereof vis‑a‑vis the respondents who are junior to the appellants. It has been further prayed that pursuant to the correct placement of the "appellants in the final seniority list pro forma promotion to N. P. S. 18 may also be granted to the appellants.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants in response to advertisement in the Pakistan Times, dated 16th April, 1968, given by the W West Pakistan Public Service Commission, were directly recruited in former W. P. E. S. II. The appellants joined on various dates as given in the impugned seniority list. The respondents Nos. 2 to 40 who were serving as S. S. T. in the Education Department were promoted to W. P. E. S. .II Administrative Branch Men Section, in the year 1968. Respondents Nos. 41 to 51 were repatriated from the Province of Baluchistan on Dissolution of West Pakistan under Presidential Order No. 1 of 1977 on various dates after December, 1972 and respondents Nos. 56 to 65 were likewise repatriated from N.‑W. F. P. on dissolution of One Unit. The appellants have been shown junior in the seniority list which is impugned before us. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned District Attorney alongwith learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Before proceeding on the merits of the case a preliminary objec tion has been raised by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents through a miscellaneous application in which he has submitted that tile appeal is liable to be dismissed as being time‑barred by one year and 10 months, therefore, the same may be disposed of accordingly.

6. We have called upon the learned counsel for the appellants to meet this crucial issue so raised by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents in this case. The only answer which we have received from learned counsel for the appellants is that as the impugned seniority list did not come to the notice of the appellants, therefore, they were justified to file the appeal on 7th October, 1982. Learned counsel for the appellants has conceded that the list was so circulated in May, 1982, but has not been able to explain the delay of 5 months after the same was so circu lated.

7. We have examined this issue from all angles and find that when the seniority list was notified on 7th January, 1981, it was a notice to all concerned and to take shelter behind an excuse that the same was not circulated to all concerned, would be a very lame excuse. We also do not find any merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants that he had vested right to make representation against the impugned seniority list when the same was circulated to his clients. The fact of the matter is that as the seniority list was issued in the name of the Governor therefore, under section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, no representation would lie against the order of the Governor. The exercise so taken by the appellants would be an exercise in futility, and therefore, we are not pursuaded to allow them that period spent in this useless exercise. From both the angles we are fully satisfied that the appeal is time‑barred. If we hold and we have no hesitation to hold that the noti fication of impugned seniority list is on information to all concerned, the appeal is time‑barred by one year and 10 months. Even if we allow con cession of wishful thinking to the appellants that the time limit in their case would run from the date when the list was circulated to them in 1982, even then the appeal is time‑barred by about 5 months. The appellants have failed to give any reason as to why this delay be condoned. We are also not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel for the appel lant that order in the name of the Governor should be taken as mere formality as in fact the list was prepared by the Secretary to Government. It is an established principle of law that any order made in the name of the Governor is deemed to be an order from the Governor vide Article 13 of the 1973 Constitution. We are fully protected to take this view in the light of the language of Article 139 of 1973 Constitution.

8. The result is we dismiss the appeal as time‑barred. There will be no order as to costs.

A.E Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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