Find a Lawyer

Cases Nos. 274/736, 275/737, 276/738, 277/739, 278/740, 287/784, 288/ 785, 289/786, 290/787, 292/788, 294/789, 295/790, 296/791 of 1984. decided on 8th July, 1984.

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑West Pakistan Tehsildari and Naib‑Tehsildari Services Rules, 1962, R.9‑‑Seniority, fixation of‑‑For fixation of seniority of direct recruits vis‑a‑vis, promotees, date of selection, held, would be immaterial‑‑Where incumbents were promoted and selected in accordance with prescribed manner, word "ad hoc" used against promotees in promotion orders would be meaningless and of no legal effect.

‑‑‑S. 2‑‑Term "ad hoc appointment".‑‑Meaning.

‑‑‑S. 2‑‑Word "regular"‑‑Meaning.

‑‑R.5‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4‑‑Seniority list‑ Invalidity of‑‑While setting aside impugned seniority lists of employees, Service Tribunal directed Authority that temporary vacancies should be filled in accordance with quota as fixed under R.5 of 1962 Rules.

Norms of‑‑Howsoever a person be honest and independent. it is always against rule of propriety to associate himself when his personal interests were involved in a particular case.

Masud Ahmad Riaz and Syed Jamshed Ali for Appellants.

Rana Muhammad Sarwar Khan for Respondents Nos.3 to15.

Ch. Mushtaq Masood for Respondent No.16.

M. M. Saeed Baig for Respondents Nos. 17, 19 and 21

.‑‑M/s. Altaf Ahmad Khan and 12 others have filed these Appeals under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which they have impleaded, Member Board of Revenue (Rev.), Punjab, Lahore, Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad and M/s. Muhammad Asad Lali, Muhammad Munir, Muhammad Taufiq, Muhammad Ziaur Rehman, Ch. Mafqbool Ahmad, Khalid Bashir and Najaf Abbas, Sikandar Khan Tiwana, Saifullah, Rana Ijaz Ahmad, Javed Bashir and Asghar Majeed, Saleem Khalid, Ch. Muhammad Siddique, Anwar Hussain, Syed Ghufran Ahmad, Muhammad Akbar, Haji Mahmood and Muhammad Sarwar, all Naib‑Tehsildars, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, they have prayed that appellants be declared senior to respondents Nos. 3 to 21 and order of seniority dated 3‑12‑1983, be set aside. It has been further prayed that the appellants be declared as regular Naib‑Tehsildars of Faisalabad Division.

3. Brief facts of the case are that all the appellants were regular Kanungos working in various districts of Faisalabad Division. The Commissioner, Faisalabad Division invited rolls of selection of the Kanungo as Naib‑Tehsildars for B‑Class. The appellants nomination rolls were recommended by the Deputy Commissioner to the learned Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad, as Naib‑Tehsildars. The Selection Board was constituted of Commissioner as Chairman, Additional Commissioner, one Deputy Commissioner and an Army representative of Members. Similarly, is the Board also interviewed 19 direct recruits who were duly recommended by the various Deputy Commissioners and out of these, 13 were selected for the posts of Naib‑Tehsildars. The selection was made on 5‑4‑1983 while Selection Board was pleased to select the appellants on 16‑4‑1983. In between; the Selection Board also selected six members of the ministerial staff who were also duly recommended by their respective Deputy Commissioners on 6‑4‑1983. Later on, on 3‑5‑1983, six more A‑Class candidates were selected by the said Selection Board. After this selection A‑Class candidates were deputed for training vide order dated 5‑5‑1983. Similarly, persons from ministerial staff were deputed for six months training vide order dated 5‑5‑1983. However, the appellants were posted as Naib‑Tehsildars as they were not required to undergo any revenue training vide order dated 17‑4‑1983_ On 27‑10‑1983 a tentative seniority list was published by the learned Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad, in which the selectees were shown as follows:‑

Serial No. Class

1‑13 A‑Class

14‑19 B‑Class Ministerial Staff

20‑32 B‑Class Kanungos.

33‑38 A‑Class

Against this seniority list, the appellant filed their objections which were considered and rejected, vide order, dated 3‑12‑1983 and finally seniority list was published which reflected the same rejection. Against the said final list, the appellants submitted representations to the Member, Board of Revenue on 29‑12‑1983, which has now published an integrated seniority list of the entire Province, wherein the names of the appellants as well as those of the respondents are missing. The appellants aggrieved against the final integrated seniority list published by the Board of Revenue as well as the final list published by the Commissioner, have filed these appeals on the expiry of 90 days before this Tribunal.

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

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the publication of tentative as well as final seniority lists by the learned Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad, is against rule 9(2) of the West Pakistan Tehsildari and Naib‑Tehsildar Services Rules, 1962. It has been further submitted that selection so made was a continued process dealing with appellants as well as respondents case who formulated one batch and mere date of interview was nothing but a matter of administrative convenience which would not affect the merit of their selection and seniority vis‑a‑vis each other. It was vehemently argued that the appellant be treated to have been selected as Members of one batch of selectees without taking into consideration the dates of selection which of course varied. It was further submitted that the appellants could not be different in nature and the method of these appointments were also given in the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. While concluding his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the list so prepared has been prepared with the active association of Mr. Muhammad Hussain, who is working as Assistant Commissioner (General) with the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad and according to the rules of propriety and fair-play the said Assistant Commissioner should have disassociated with this case as his own son happens to be one of A‑Class selected Naib‑Tehsildar.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments submitted by the learned Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad and has submitted that the seniority list has been formulated in accordance with the date of selection, therefore, the same be maintained. He has also submitted that sometime earlier the quota reserved for A‑Class Naib‑Tehsildars could not be exhausted due to unavoidable circumstances, therefore, it was equitable that quota should also be now taken into consideration while providing jobs to this category. However, it was pointed out that this quota earlier fell in the lot of Sargodha Division and as two districts of Faisalabad and Jhang were in the administrative jurisdiction of Sargodha Division, but now have fallen in Faisalabad Division, therefore, this inequity has been remedied. While concluding his arguments learned District Attorney has submitted that list so published by the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad, would have no legal effect as none of the appellants and the respondents were still Members of Service, therefore, the integrated list published by the Board of Revenue Punjab has rightly excluded their names.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that under the rules and procedure for promotion as well as selection of Naib‑Tehsildars no where it has been laid down that persons selected earlier would deem senior to the persons selected later when all of them constitute one batch. What the rules lay down in that seniority of direct recruits vis‑a‑vis the promotees will be fixed with reference to the date of continuous appointments. We produce rule 9(2)(a) as follows:‑

"9. Seniority.‑‑(1) ... ... ... ...

(2) The seniority in the vrious 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 vacancies 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."

In view of the said rules, all the appellants as well as respondents were recommended for promotion and selection respectively for certain temporary vacancies which were available at that relevant time, therefore, it cannot be said that if certain persons were interviewed earlier or later that would form the basis of their seniority. We are of the considered opinion that the seniority list so formulated by the learned Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad, is in violation of the mandatory provisions of Rules so quoted above, which would be the only criteria to fix the seniority of the appellants and respondents inter se. We also rely on the letter of October, 1976, issued by the Board of Revenue to all the Commissioners in which above principle has been enumerated for guidance of the said Commissioners. In this letter, it was specifically clarified that for purposes of fixation of seniority of direct recruits via‑a‑via the promotees, the date of selection will be immaterial.

8. With regard to the submissions of learned District Attorney based on the comments of the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad, that the appellants were ad hoc whereas the respondents were regular, we have no hesitation to repel the same as the‑appellants as well as respondents were promoted and selected in accordance with the prescribed manner, therefore, the words ad hoc used against the appellants in their promotion orders would be meaningless and of no legal effect. If the learned Commissioner was of the opinion that the appellants were ad hoc then the same would have been said about the respondents case, as they were selected in the same manner. The terms 'regular' as well as ad hoc has been defined in the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974;

"ad hoc appointment" means appointment of a duly qualified person made otherwise than in accordance with the prescribed method of recruitment, pending recruitment in accordance with such method;

(2) For the purpose of this Act, an appointment whether by promotion or otherwise, shall be deemed to have been made on regular basis if it is made in the prescribed manner."

9. In view of the above analysis of the case, we proceed to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants, as well as respondents were selected in the prescribed manner and' cannot be considered as ad hoc. Reliance is placed on our own Judgment in cases of Rustam Ali etc. v. Government of Punjab No. 577/1475, 560/1476, 555/1473, 506/1477, 587/1474 of 1981, decided on 2‑5‑1983.

10. After taking into, consideration the entire merits of this case, we are of the considered opinion that temporary vacancies now available with the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, would be filed in accordance with quota as fixed under rule 5 of the Tehsildari and Naib‑Tehsildar Service Rules, 1962, read with Ratio of Quota Rules 1074, and proceed to set aside both the impugned seniority lists of the learned Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad.

11. Before parting with this case, we will like to observe that howsoever a person be honest and independent it is always against the rule of propriety to associate himself when his persq,1hal interests are involved in a particular case. It is established on the record that Mr. Muhammad Hussain's own son was selected as A‑Class Naib‑Tehsildar and his seniority was also under consideration vis‑a‑vis the appellants, therefore, Mr. Muhammad Hussain should have disassociated himself from the said case, under the rules of propriety, and fair-play.

12. Resultantly the appeals succeed in the light of the observation in para. 9 and 10 above. There will be no order as to costs Judgment to be communicated to the parties.

A.A. Appeals allowed .

Find a Lawyer Near You

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