Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeals Nos. 147 and 148 of 1980 and No. 156 of 1981, decided on 9th March, 1986.

(Against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, N.‑W. F. P. Peshawar, dated 10th January, 1980 and the judgment of the Service Tribunal Punjab Lahore, dated 4th March, 1981).

‑‑ Art. 212 (3)‑West Pakistan Education Service (Class II Collegiate Branch) (Men's Section) Rules, 1962, rr. 3 & 10‑Leave to appeal granted to examine question of law as to the effect of notification, dated 28‑2‑1970 on inter se seniority of those selected and appointed to Government service strictly in accordance with Rules of 1962 and those appointed by Notification, dated 28‑2‑1970.

‑‑ Art. 212 (3)‑Civil service‑Seniority‑Selection and appoint ments of one batch to Government service strictly in accordance with Rules and subsequent recruitment of another under Order of Govern ment published in official Gazette‑Seniority of such appointee inter se‑No express provision made in order (notification) for regulating inter se seniority of those recruited under Rules and those recruited under order‑Non obstante clause in order expressly mentioned only method of recruitment and age prescribed in Rules and also fixed date of induction of appointees and date from which they reckoned their seniority‑Order was, therefore, a valid piece of legislation and governed case of those recruited under it‑There being two sets of Rules, one applicable to each group, for determining their seniority If seniority of each group so determined presented no conflict on merger, resort to no other instrument or principle, held, was neces sary‑In case of conflict, it had necessarily to be resolved by reference to the order, for it had overridden Rules and in case of being nothing in it, then by reference to the Rules‑It is only after exhausting said avenues and not finding answer to question of inter se seniority, that resort could be had to the general principles of seniority enunciated in Khushi Muhammad case P L D 1970 S C 203‑General rule of seniority could be allowed to prevail only when no method of determining seniority was prescribed and none was discoverable.

Pakistan v. Sheikh Abdul Hamid P L D 1961 S C 105; Mukhtar Ahmad and 37 others v. Government of West Pakistan P L D 1971 S C 846 ; Khushi Muhammad's case P L D 1970 S C 203 ; Airs H.A. Shah v. Director, Social Welfare Punjab. Lahore 1975 P L C (C S. T.) 69 and Pakistan v. A. P. Hassumani and another P L D 1962 S C 409 ref.

‑‑‑ Dispute between civil servants‑Duty of Government to assist Courts in resolving and deciding factual and legal issues involved.

The Government are custodian of all official records concerning the parties to the litigation who are all civil servants. The decisions within the department, the orders and the selections, are all a part of their overall policy to deal fairly and properly with civil servants. Where Government is a party in a dispute between civil servants it should wholeheartedly assist the Service Tribunal and the Courts in resolving and deciding the factual and legal issues involved instead of remaining a disinterested, unconcerned on looker awaiting the result, for such an attitude in a contentious and prolonged litigation is likely to irretrievably impair that feeling of comradeship and the "esprit de core" so assiduously inculcated for obtain ing efficient and devoted service from them.

S. Iftikhur Gillani, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellants.

M. Sardar Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents Nos. I to 3, 5 to 35, 74, 76 to 83, 86 to 90 and 93 to 95.

Amirzada Khan, Advocate‑General, N.‑W. F. P. for the Government of N.‑W. F. P.

Qazi Muhammad Jamil, Advocate instructed by Qasim Imam, Advocate- on‑Record (absent) for Appellants.

M. Sardar Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents Nos. 3 to 5, 7, 9 to 27, 29, 31 to 43, 45 to 47, 49 to 54 and 56 to 59.

Amirzada Khan Advocate‑General, N.‑W. F. P. for the Government of N.‑W. F. P.

Munir A. Shaikh, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Ch. Nazir Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate -on‑Record for Appellants.

Respondents Nos. 96, 188 to 196 in person.

Ch. Hamid‑ud Din, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Ahmad Bani, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on- Record for Respondents Nos. 3, 5 to 7, 9, 11, 12 to 15, 17, 18, 20 to 29, 31, 32, 34 to 41, 43 to 46, 49, 51 to 55, 57 to 60, 62, 64 to 68, 72 to 77, 79 and 83 for Respondents.

Remaining Respondents : Ex parte.

M Nawaz Abbasi, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab and Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Punjab Government.

Dates of hearing : 22nd and 23rd February, 1980.

Leave to appeal was granted under Article 212(3) of the Constitution in three appeals, two (C. A. 147 and 148 of 1980) arising out of the same judgment of the N.‑W. F. P. Service Tribunal, dated 10‑1‑1980 and one (C. A. 156 of 1981) arising out of judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 4‑3‑1981. The question of law requiring examination in all the three appeals is the same, viz. the effect of notification, dated 28‑2‑1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Order) on the inter se, seniority of those selected and appointed to Government service strictly in accordance with "The West Pakistan Education Service (Class II Collegiate, Branch) (Men's Section" Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), and those appointed by the Order.

The Rules (rule 3) constituted on the basis of Regional Cadres a Provincial Education Service (Class II Collegiate Branch) (Men's Section). Recruitment to this service was to be made "by initial recruitment in Consultation with the Commission". Twenty per cent vacancies were to be filled on merit from among candidates domiciled in any part of West Pakistan". The remaining vacancies were "reserved for bona fide residents of the zones specified "in proportion to their population according to the census figures". The rule of seniority (Rule 10) was "in accordance with the order of merit determined by the Commission; provided that person selected from the service in an earlier selection shall rank senior to the person selected in a later selection". Advertisements for recruitments under these rules had appeared in press on Friday, June 30, 1967 and the next on Friday December 27, 1968. The Public Service Commission had selected candidates who applied pursuant to these advertisements. On the 28th of February, 1970, the Order was notified. As the decision of these appeals rests substantially on the interpretation of this instrument, it is reproduced hereunder in extenso‑

"Government of West Pakistan

Services and General Administration

Department

‑In pursuance of the provisions of the Martial Law Proclamation of 25th March, 1969, read with the Provisional Constitution Order, and in exercise of powers enabling him in that behalf, the Governor of West Pakistan is pleased to direct that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any rules relating to the method of recruitment of or the age for appointment to any Service or post under the rule making authority of the Governor of West Pakistan‑‑‑

(a) every person appointed on ad hoc basis to any Service or post under the rule making authority of the Governor of West Pakistan whose appointment to such Service or post has not been regularised for any reason shall, with effect from the date of this notification, be deemed to have been regularly appointed to such Service or post ; provided that‑

(i) such person has continuously served in such Service or post, as the case may be, since 1st January, 1966 ;

(ii) Such person possesses the qualification prescribed for such Service or post, as the case ma.), be, at the time of his ad hoc appointment thereto ;

(iii) such person has, in the opinion of the West Pakistan Public Service Commission, a satisfactory record of Service ;

(iv) such person has not been previously rejected by the West Pakistan Public Service Commission for such service or post, except in the ease of a person who could not be selected for want of a vacancy under the regional representation formula ;

(v) such person was appointed in accordance with the ratio prescribed in the relevant rules for appointment by initial recruitment vis‑a‑vis promotion to such service or post ; and

(vi) the West Pakistan Public Service Commission has in respect of the appointment or post held by such person, not recommended any other person ;

(b) the person whose appointment is regularized under the provisions of these orders, shall count their seniority in the service, grade, cadre or post, to which they are so regularly appointed with effect from Ist January, 1970 ; and

(c) in the case of persons appointed on ad hoc basis to any Service or post under the rule making authority of the Governor of West Pakistan, whose appointment thereto cannot be regularised under these orders, the period of service already rendered by them in that capacity plus a period of one year shall, for the purpose of reckoning the upper age limit prescribed in respect of any other Service or Post under any Service or Recruitment Rules, be excluded from their age.

By the order of the Governor

Addl. Chief Secretary, Government of

West Pakistan, Services and General

Administration Department".

The selections even under this Order were finalized in consultation with the Public Service Commission. It requires particular mention that, though not necessarily so but as a fact, most of the contestants were already serving in ad hoc capacities till they were recruited to the service either under the Rules or under the Order. In the N.‑W. F. P. a seniority list, dated 2‑12‑1978 was gazetted. The peculiar feature of this list is that 1967 batch recruits under the Rules were shown senior to those recruited under the Order though the dates of actually taking up the appointment by some of 1967 batch were as late as September/October 1970 (Serial Nos. 117, 119, 114 and 115). The recruits of 1968 batch under the Rules were shown junior to those recruited under the Order though the dates of actually taking up the appointment in the case of some selectees of 1968 batch under the Rules was as early as May/June 1970 (Serial Nos. 217 and 199). Those recruited under the Order and given seniority from 1‑1‑1970 were sandwiched in the seniority list in between 1967 and 1968 batches. After representing to the departmental authorities, two service appeals were filed before the Tribunal. The first (Service Appeal No. 20 of 1979 relatable to present Civil Appeal No. 148 of 1980) was filed by those lecturers who were recruited on the basis of advertisement appearing in 1968 but they look up their appointments of September 1970. Their claim before the Service Tribunal was that as they belonged to an earlier batch of selectees and the Public Service Commission had assigned them the seniority the same could not be retrospectively overridden by the Order notified on 28th of February, 1970. According to them, the rule 10 governed their case and their seniority could not be overridden by the Order.

The second appeal (Service Appeal No. 23 of 1979 relatable to present Civil Appeal No. 147 of 1980) was filed by those ad hoc appointees whose appointment was regularised under the Order and they objected to the allocation of seniority above them to those recruited through the Public Service Commission under the Rules on the basis of advertisement appear ing in 1967 notwithstanding the fact that some of the selectees took over the appointment, like the appellants in the other Service appeal, in September and October 1970. They contended that the date of actually taking over of the appointment determined the seniority and the date of selection and the date of their appointment were irrelevant. They relied wholly on the Order for claiming seniority over them.

In the first appeal of the 1968 batch selectees the Government of N.‑W. F. P. on merits took up the position as appearing hereunder in its written statement before the Service Tribunal :‑

"At the time of the Notification dated 28‑2‑1970, the result of appel lants and the pro forma respondents 60 to 86 were not declared by the Public Service Commission, so there is no question of the decision having adversely affected their cause. In fact they have no cause under the circumstances of this case."

In the other appeal preferred by ad hoc appointees recruited under the Order and with regard to the objection to seniority of 1967 batch selectees notwithstanding that the date of their taking over was later than 1‑1‑1970 the following comments were offered in the written statement

"the above respondents have been placed senior to the appellants in view of the advice of the Government of N.‑W. F. P., S & GAD contained in their U. O. No. S. O. R.‑1 (S & GAD) 1‑10/77, dated 13‑5‑1978, that (a) the seniority of P. S. C. selectees should be counted from the date of their first appointment subject to the condition that their inter se seniority as assigned by the Public Service Commission should not be disturbed, (6) the seniority of the ad hoc lecturers who appeared in the P. S. C. competition alongwith the lecturers mentioned in (a) above but were not selected would rank junior to the later.

(iv) All the above lecturers from Serial. Nos. 63 to 119 have been assigned combined merit position by the P. S. C. vide Annexure A' attached herewith."

The N.‑W. F. P. Service Tribunal by a common judgment disposed of both the appeals. It held that the Order was valid in all respects, fully governed the situation and was beyond challenge in 1978. Rule 10 of the Rules was held to be inapplicable for determining the inter se seniority of those appointed under the Rule and those recruited under the Order. The date of actual taking over the posts on recruitment, whether made by Public Service Commission or as assigned by the Order itself, was taken to be the date of induction in service allowing those recruited under the Order seniority from 1‑1‑1970 and no other date. On this view the Service Appeal No. 20 of .1979 was dismissed and Service Appeal No‑ 23 of 1979 was allowed making such selectees of the Public Service Commission junior if they had taken over their appointment after 1‑1‑1970 the date from which the ad hoc recruits were to reckon their seniority.

In the Punjab the seniority list was published and gazetted in 1979 reflecting, inter se seniority of all the recruits as on 11‑12‑1978. The selectees of 1967 and 1968 batches were shown from Serial Nos. 90 to 440 while the ad hoc recruits appointed under the Order and entitled to reckon their seniority from 1‑1‑1970 were shown from Serial Nos. 442 to 522. The intactness of the seniority within the batch as assigned by the Public Service Commission was maintained as also between the batches of selectees following advertisements appearing before 1‑1‑1970. They were shown senior to the ad hoc recruits notwithstanding the fact that the date of taking over of the appointment by those recruited under the Rules in response to advertisements of 1967 and 196s at times happened to be subsequent to 1‑1‑1970. The ad hoc recruits under the Order after repre senting to the department filed service appeal before the Tribunal contend ing that the Order fully governed the situation that the date of entry into service has to be taken as the date of seniority and that if a selectee of batch of 1967 or 1968 took over after 1‑1‑1970 then not only he was to be shown junior to the ad hoc recruits but all of his batch as their batch seniority inter se could not be disturbed by making the juniors within the batch senior.

The Punjab Service Tribunal examined at length the precedent law on the subject with a view to resolve the legal contentions raised before it. It held that the Order was a valid instrument fully governing the situation, that the ad hoc recruits were entitled to reckon their seniority from 1‑1‑1970 and that those taking over on the basis of selection made by the Public Service Commission after that date were to be assigned seniority below such ad hoc recruits. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and also ordered that if promotions had taken place without taking into con sideration the seniority as adjudged by the Tribunal the same shall be reconsidered.

When the three appeals came up for hearing before this Court on 9‑12‑1.984 an order in the following terms was passed by the Court :‑

"In all these appeals the Provincial Government of N.‑W. F. P. and Punjab are necessary parties. They were duly impleaded but they are not represented today. The representation on their behalf is very essential.

Learned counsels for the parties appearing today are directed to submit their written statements containing all points including the relevant law and Case Law by 12‑12‑1984.

A copy each of the submission will be sent to the two Provincial Governments. They shall without fail submit their respective similar written statements taking firm position with regard to the points made in the submissions of the parties counsel and shall file their statements within four weeks of the receipt of the statements of the counsel.

The office shall fix these appeals within two months of the receipt of statements of the Provincial Governments.

Order accordingly."

In response to this Order, the Punjab Government submitted a comment taking up the position as stated hereunder ‑

"In accordance with the above rules the seniority of the persons selected recommended by Public Service Commission is to be arranged on the basis of year of selection/recommendation and not on the basis of joining the post. Thus, the persons recommended for appointment in the year 1970 (Regularisation from 1‑1‑1970) cannot rank senior to the earlier batches of selection for 1967 and 1968, irrespective of the fact that they (selectees of 1967 and 1968) joined later than the day of regularisation i. e. 1‑1‑1970."

The comments of the N.‑W. F. P. Government on the question of law as well as on facts are summarised hereunder ‑

(i) The recommendations from the Public Service Commission with regard to the recruitment pursuant to advertisements appearing in 1907 were received on various dates in between 3‑4‑1969 and 16‑9‑1970 and orders for appointment issued thereafter in accordance therewith.

(ii) The recommendations of the Public Service Commission relatable to the advertisement of 1968 were received between 30‑6‑1970 to 1‑5‑1.971 and the orders of appointment issued thereafter in accordance with it.

(iii) Respondents 3 to 59 ad hoc appointees had also appeared before the Commission alongwith other competitors for recruitment under the rule pursuant to advertisements of 1967 and 1968 and had failed to qualify.

(iv) The principle adopted by the Government for fixing the seniority was "the date of appointment by the department" (Government of N.‑W. F. P.)

(v) The batch of 1967 came first followed by batch of ad hoc appointees regularised under the notification as second and the batch of 1968 recommended by the Public Service Commission as third being appointed subsequent to the date of notification i. e. 28‑2‑1970.

(vi) That the dispute relates to the inter se seniority between the lecturers whereby the Government is not affected and for this reason it was placed ex parte before this August Court.

(vii) That no doubt by Notification, dated 28‑2‑1970 the service of ad hoc appointees were regularised with effect from the date of the said Notification yet their approval by the Public Service Commis sion was a precedent condition and as such in fact it is the date of approval which is more important than that of Notification. The date of approval of respondents is subsequent to the dates of recommendation in case of batch of 1967 and the batch of 1968.

Mr. S. Iftikhar Gillani, Advocate, representing the recruits under the rules of the batch of 1967 in N.‑W. F. P. and Qazi Muhammad Jamil, the learned counsel representing the candidates recruits under the Rules of the batch of 1968 have challenged the decision of the Tribunal on the ground that the Order had a limited and specific purpose, of absorbing ad hoc lecturers. As there was no provision made therein for fixing the inter se seniority of the recruits under the Rules and the recruits under the Order and that part of the seniority rule had not been expressly overridden by the Order, rule 10 governing their seniority had to be given full effect and if the batch seniority is observed then the date of entry incomes immaterial and irrelevant. Those recruited under the Rules on basis of selection of the year 1967 would be senior to those recruited reference in advertisements of 1968. Those recruited under the Order in 1970 will come after both such recruits. These learned counsels no longer question the legal validity, the efficacy and applicability of the Order. They take it to be the law governing the situation but only as far as it is applicable to the case, in all other respects and for all other purposes the Rules remaining in the field. They have drawn our particular attention to the non obstante clause appearing in the Order whereby only the method of recruitment and the age for appointment was overridden and express departure there from was made. In addition, what could necessarily be implied was that their date of induction in the service was fixed as the date of the notification, that is, 28‑2‑1970 and those finally selected by the Public Service Commission under the Order were to reckon their seniority from 1‑1‑1970. Except for these four matters, namely, the method of recruitment, the age for recruitment, the date of entry into service and the date fixed for reckoning seniority, in all other matters they were as much subject to the Rules as the results under the rules themselves. It is for this reason, according to these learned counsels, that rules 10 determining the seniority will have full effect and play and the date of entry into service which has been held by the Service Tribunal to be sacrosanct has no place either in the Rules or in the Order. They have also drawn our attention to the highly inequitable results that ensue if the interpretation of the Service Tribunal is accepted. It is contended that those found more meritorious on an earlier date as against those recruited under the Order, both competing for the same post, get relegated to a junior position, only because the administrative procedure delayed the issuance of their appoint ment letter notwithstanding the fact that the Public Service Commission had selected them earlier and their selection was duly recognised and preserved even under the Order. The more meritorious and the more deserving on this interpretation yield in seniority to those who were recruited by way of a general ad hoc dispensation not so much founded on merit and competence as on policy and expediency. According to these learned counsels, the position taken by the Government of N; W. F. P. is inconsistent. 1967 batch recruits have been given seniority notwithstanding its own comments that recommendations of the Commis sion even in respect of these recruits were received as late as 16‑9‑1970 while 1968 recruits were denied the same treatment though in respect of some of them the recommendations were received as early as 20‑6‑1970. This inconsistency, according to the learned counsels, is not capable of being explained or justified on any hypothesis whatsoever.

Mr. Munir A. Shaikh the learned counsel representing the appellants from the Punjab, has apart from the points urged by the other two learned counsels, tried to impress by reference to constitutional protections earlier available to civil servants that under the existing service laws seniority was not a matter protected and the express provision applicable was the one contained in the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 and as the Rules prescribe direct or initial recruitment as the only mode of recruitment rule 8 thereof fully govern the situation. This rule provides that in the case of a person appointed by initial recruitment in accordance with the order of merit assigned by the selecting authority provided that persons selected on appointment the grade in an earlier selection shall rank senior to the persons selected in the later selection. This is in fact an incorporation and continuance of rule 10 of the Rules. At is contended that every rule or dispensation with regard to seniority inconsistent with what is provided therein have to yield on the strength of section 22 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act. According to the learned counsels, seniority being not a vested right it was permissible for the competent authority to change the seniority principle by altering the rule of seniority and abrogating the earlier rule.

Ch. Hamid‑ud‑Din, Advocate, representing the recruits under the Order from Punjab and Mr. M. Sardar Khan, the learned counsel representing the recruits under the Order from N.‑w. F. P. have contended that the Order of the Governor notified in the Gazette of 7^th March, 1970 has the generality, precision and is also. formally expressed through a gazette notification so it has to be taken to be a rule if not superior to a rule of service. For this reliance is placed on Pakistan v. Sheikh Abdul Hamid (PLD1951SC105). It is also contended that it had the effect of superseding to the extent of inconsistency and incompatibility the Rules and for this support is drawn from the decision of this Court in Mukhtar Ahmad and 37 others v. Government of West Pakistan (PLD1971SC846). It is also admitted by both the learned counsel as well as by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no express provision made therein for regulating the inter se seniority of those recruited under the Rules and those recruited under the Order. For this, it is contended that the general principle of seniority as expressed in Khushi Muhammad's case (P L D 1970 S C 203), is to be resorted to. Further, for the proposition that if anyone senior in batch becomes junior to those recruited under the Order then all his batch recruits become junior irrespective of the date of their entry into service reliance is placed on the decision of the earlier Service Tribunal in the case of Mrs. H. A. Shah v. Director, Social Welfare Punjab, Lahore (1975 P L C (C. S. T.) 69). Finally, it is contended that the presence and prolonged continuance of such a large number of ad hoc employees in the service was known to every one and also the efforts of the Government to accommodate them on a regular basis. In view of the administrative background and the nature of dispensation, as it was not restricted only to the lecturers but extended to all employment under the Government, those recruited under the Order could be treated senior on the basis of dates when they joined service as in the case of Pakistan v. A. P. Hassuntani and A. R. Malik (PLD1962SC409).

At this stage and for the purposes of these appeals, it is the agreed position that the Order is a valid piece of Legislation and governs the case of those recruited under it. This we find to be the correct legal position also.

It is only its scope, meaning and effect which has to be determined., It is correct that the non obstante clause mentions expressly only the method of recruitment and the age prescribed in the Rules but the Order goes beyond and also fixes the date of their induction into service as 28th February, 1970 and the date from which they will reckon their seniority as 1‑1‑1970. There were, therefore, in the field two sets of rules, one applicable to each group, for determining their seniority. If the seniority of each group so determined presented no conflict on merger, resort to no other instrument or principle was necessary. If there was a conflict then first it had necessarily to be resolved by reference to the Order, for it had overridden the Rules, and if there was nothing in it, then by reference to the Rules. It is only after exhausting these avenue and not finding an answer to the question that resort could be had to the general principles of seniority enunciated in Khushi Muhammad's case. In that decision the general rule was allowed to prevail only when no method of determining seniority was prescribed and none was discoverable.

The Order which is under examination while recruiting ad hoc employees, excludes in proviso (vi) the appointment or post" held by such ad hoc employees for which West Pakistan Public Service Commis sion has recommended any other person." This proviso restricts the eligibility of ad hoc appointees to the residue. From the comments of the Punjab Government, and as it is relatable to the period prior to dissolu tion of West Pakistan, it will equally apply to N.‑W. F. P., the requisition placed with the Public Service Commission for recruting the 1969 oatch was recalled, as it was anticipated that the Order would be forthcoming. In this manner and on the strength of proviso (vi) the recommendations already made were excluded from the purview of the Order. Those recruited under the Outer cannot take their seniority to a date earlier than 1‑1‑1970. Under the Order the date of taking over is immaterial, for in the case of those recruited under the Order, date of induction is 28‑2‑1970 but seniority has been allowed from 1‑1‑197(). In the case of the recruits under the Rules, the date of appointment in service may be subsequent to 1‑1‑1970 but if the recommendation is relatable to 1967 or 1938 selection then they take back their seniority to these selections. In this manner there remains no conflict to be resolved for seniority will follow the batches in order, 1967, 1968, 1970, there being none for 1969, the requisition having been recalled.

The date of communication of recommendation has also no relevance. The posts for recruitment under the Rules were advertised by West Pakistan Public Service Commission in 1967 and 1968. The selections were held by the West Pakistan Public Service Commission. The Dissolution of West Pakistan came about on 30‑6‑1970 by President's Order No. 1 of 1970 promulgated on 30th March, 1970. Even under the Order the cases of ad hoc appointees had to be sent to the Public Service Commission for satisfaction of some of the conditions prescribed in the provisos to the Order e.g. (i) satisfactory record of service, (ii) posses sion of minimum qualification, (iii) required period of continued ad hoc appointment, (iv) his earlier non‑rejection by the Commission, (v) no other person has been recommended for such post or appointment. It is not any body's case that the appointment letters issuing to the appellants had not issued on the basis of selections made in 1967 or 1968 or that the recommendations of the Public Service Commission concerning them related to any other recruitment except these two batches. Such being the position there was left no conflict in fixing the seniority. The Punjab Government correctly prepared the seniority list. The N.‑W. F. P. Government was inconsistent in applying the rule of seniority.

Before concluding, however, we cannot help taking note of the apathy and the lack of interest, initially shown by the two Provincial Governments, though more than a thousand officers of the Education Department were involved in this acrimonous litigation. The Governments are custodian of all official records concerning .the parties to the litigation who are all civil servants. The decisions within the department, the orders and the selections, are all a part of their overall policy to deal fairly and proper with civil servants. It, was its effort', on the eve of dissolution of West Pakistan, to resolve finally the abiding problem of a large number of ad hoc employees continued in service since long in various departments. Where Government is a party in a dispute between civil servants it should who leheartedly assist the Service Tribunal and the Courts in resolving an deciding the factual and legal issues involved instead of remaining disinterested, unconcerned onlooker awaiting the result, for such an attitude in a contentious and prolonged litigation is likely to irretrievably impair that feeling of comradeship and the "esprit de corp" so assiduously inculcated for obtaining efficient and devoted service from them.

All the three appeals are accepted, the impugned judgments of the two Service Tribunals are set aside. The seniority list as notified in Punjab is restored that of N.‑W. F. P. is partially set aside in so far as 1968 batch selectees were relegated to a position lower than those recruited under the Order. After resettling the seniority list the N.‑W. F. P. Government shall take steps to extend the appropriate benefit of resettled seniority, to those who were deprived of it due to its incorrect fixation of their seniority.

No order as to costs.

M. B. A: Appeals accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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