' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, J---This appeal is directed against the consolidated judgment passed by the Service Tribunal on 28-9-2000, whereby three Appeals No,67, 68 and 69 of 1997 separately filed by the appellant herein were dismissed on the ground that the same were time- barred.
2. The facts relevant for the decision of this appeal precisely stated are that the appellant herein assailed the promotion orders of respondents No,5 to 12 and Mst. Ansar Naseer and Bilqees Akhter to the posts of B-17 and B-18 through three separately filed appeals before the Service Tribunal. The appellant alleged in her appeals that she was senior to them as a senior teachress B-16 and further that these respondents have been promoted in B-17 and B-18 without considering her merits as her name and merits were not referred to the Selection Board for consideration. During the pendency of her appeals Mst. Ansar Naseer and Mst. Bilqees Akhtar died. Both these deceased have therefore not been impleaded in the line of respondents as the right to sue against them has not survived to anyone including the appellant. She specifically pleaded in her memorandum of appeals that the seniority list prepared by the department and the promotion order issued in favor of the respondents upon the same were never communicated to her. She pleaded that she got knowledge of the impugned seniority list and promotion orders of respondents on 22-12-1996 when she obtained a copy of the seniority list of headmistresses. She further pleaded that she filed a departmental review petition before the appropriate authority on 31-12-1996 and after waiting for statutory period of ninety days has availed the right of appeal before the Service Tribunal on 29-4- 1997. She prayed that although her appeals were within limitation from the date of her knowledge about the impugned seniority list and promotion orders of respondents, yet if any delay in the estimation of the Tribunal has been caused in lodging the appeals, the same may be condoned.
The learned Service Tribunal consolidated all the three appeals of the appellant- and without entering into the merits of the case of the respective parties dismissed her appeals through the impugned consolidated order dated 28-9-2000 on the ground of limitation.
3. Mr. Abdul Rashid Abbasi, the learned counsel for the appellant, in support of appeal argued that the seniority list was issued without communicating the same to his client for her objections. In the same way the respondents were promoted in higher grades without considering her merits. These actions being contrary to the spirit of law applicable in the State were liable to be set aside.
According to him the limitation in service matters starts from the date of communication of the impugned order to the person concerned. In the present case the tentative seniority list or the final seniority list was neither communicated to the appellant nor the same was prepared by the competent authority, therefore, such a seniority list cannot be made basis for further promotion.
According to him his client appeared before the Service Tribunal as a witness in support of her appeals and also filed separate affidavits along with the memorandum of appeals to prove lack of knowledge about the seniority list and promotion orders issued in favor of respondents. This proof was not contradicted by the contesting respondents by filing counter-affidavit or through evidence of any witness, therefore, the learned Service Tribunal was not justified to pass order contrary to the proof made available on record by the appellant. According to the learned counsel mere preparation of seniority list by an incompetent authority and issuance of promotion orders in favor respondents did not make limitation to run against his client unless and until it was proved by reliable evidence of the respondent that the same were communicated to the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contentions relied on an authority of this Court titled Inayatullah Chaudhry v. AJ&K Government and others 1990 PLC (C.S.) 598 whereby Government orders giving seniority and promotion to respondents therein were assailed before the Service Tribunal after lapse of many years. In this case in order to prove the knowledge of appellant, the respondents produced Ali Muhammad, Section Officer of the department and Muhammad Ilyas, a Peon, besides the statements of Mushtaq Ahmed and Iqbal Mohi-ud-Din, respondents therein, but it was held that from the evidence it is not proved that the copies of the impugned orders were served upon the appellant therein, as such the plea of limitation raised on behalf of respondent was repelled.
4. On the other hand Kh. Attaullah Chak and Mr. M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi, the learned counsel for the respondents, argued that private respondents were promoted by the competent authority in grade B-17 as Headmistresses vide notification dated 29-5-1984. Against the promotion orders of respondents appeals were filed by the appellant almost after thirteen years which were hopelessly time-barred as such were rightly dismissed by the Service Tribunal. In order to meet the objection that the seniority list was prepared by incompetent authority, the learned counsel for the respondents replied that even a wrong order must be assailed before the competent authority within the prescribed period of limitation relied on reported cases titled Ch. Muhammad Zaman v.
Azad Government and 4 others 1996 PLC (C.S.) 901, Naseebullah v. Mumtaz Khan and others (1993 SCR 44), Mirza Lal Hussain v. Custodian of Evacuee Property and others (1992 SCR 214), Syed Shaukat Hussain v. Secretary Establishment Division Islamabad and others (1995 PLC (C.S.) 21), and Government Punjab through Secretary Service and others v. Rao Shamsher Ali Khan and others (1992 SCMR 1388).
' In Ch. Muhammad Zaman v. Azad Government and 4 others 1996 PLC (C.S.) 901 it was laid down that the. Government order, whereby the service rendered by the appellant in the Department of People Works Programme was counted towards his seniority in the Public Works Department, was not challenged by the respondents before any forum within limitation; therefore, it was held that they cannot raise this question now. This case has got distinguishable facts and has nothing common with the facts of the present case.
' In Naseebullah v. Mumtaz Khan and others (1993 SCR 44) it was laid down that if the suit, appeal or other cause is brought beyond the period of limitation, it is for the party seeking relief to allege and prove that the suit or appeal etc., has been filed within the period of limitation. There is no dispute about the law laid down in this authority. In the present case the appellant has specifically mentioned in her appeals before the Service Tribunal the date of her knowledge and non- communication of order to her. She in support of her pleading besides filing affidavit appeared as a witness before the Service Tribunal and got her statements recorded. Therefore, whether on account of her evidence, her appeals were filed within limitation or not, this matter shall be decided in the coming part of this judgment.
' In Mirza Lal Hussain v. Custodian of Evacuee Property and others [1992 SCR 214] it is laid down that it is not a universal rule that there is no limitation against a void order. If a person is affected by a void order but he does not challenge it without a reasonable time, the Court may refuse to ignore it.
We have no dispute about the proposition laid down in this authority but the question still remains that whether an illegal order was not in the knowledge of the party who by his conduct has waived his right of objection by not challenging the same within a reasonable time before the competent forum established by law.
' In Syed Shaukat Hussain v. Secretary Establishment Division Islamabad and others (1995 PLC (C.S.) 21) a seniority list was circulated and finally published on 1-4-1990. The same was not challenged by the appellant within limitation. His departmental appeal was rejected on 25-10-1993.
The Service Tribunal also rejected his appeal on the ground that his departmental appeal was rejected on 25-10-1993 and thereafter he did not come to the Service Tribunal within limitation and instead filed another representation before the Prime Minister and after its decision he filed appeal before the Service Tribunal which, in the circumstances of the case, was held time-barred and dismissed on this ground.
' In Government of Punjab through Secretary Services and others v. Rao Shamsher Ali Khan and others [1992 SCMR 1388] the facts of the case are totally distinguishable and have nothing common with the facts of the present case and therefore need not be discussed in this judgment.
5. We have considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. As the appeals before the Service Tribunal have not been decided on merits, therefore, we need not go into the merits of the case. In paras No,4, and 5 of the appeals filed by the appellant in the Service Tribunal she has specifically pleaded that the seniority list and the orders of promotion passed in favor of respondents were not conveyed/communicated to her and further that she got knowledge about the same on 22-12-1996 when she obtained a copy of seniority list of Headmistresses. She has further pleaded in her appeals that she without wasting any further time filed a departmental review petition before the appropriate authority on 31-12-1996 and after waiting for statutory period of ninety days availed the right of appeal before the Service Tribunal on 29-4-1997. On the basis of these facts she pleaded that her appeals were well within time from the date of knowledge about the impugned orders; yet the delay, if any, may be condoned on account of lack of knowledge of the appellant. Along with her appeals she filed separate affidavits through which she supported her contents pleaded in the memorandum of appeals in each case before the Service Tribunal. She also appeared before the Service Tribunal in support of her claim as a witness in which she has clearly stated that she got knowledge of the impugned orders on 22-12-1996 and further that she availed the departmental remedy on 31-12- 1996 and after waiting for statutory period of ninety days availed the right of appeal before the Service Tribunal. In the cross-examination it was proved that no date and year has been mentioned in the seniority list nor it carries the signatures of officer who has prepared it. She also admitted in the cross-examination that her name is not mentioned in the seniority list which was prepared in the year 1984 and in the list which was prepared at her back in 1986. In the impugned seniority list the respondents have been shown senior to her. She denied that she had the knowledge of the notifications from the date of their issuance. In support of her contentions she also produced one Mst. Ghazala Haidri, a teachers posted in Secondary School Saheli Sarkar Muzaffarabad, to prove that the impugned seniority list and orders were never circulated and further that she also obtained the knowledge of the seniority list by obtaining a copy of the same.
From the other side no affidavit was filed to support the plea raised in the written statement that the appellant had the knowledge of the impugned seniority list and promotion orders of the respondents earlier than the date alleged by her in her appeals before the Service Tribunal. In the same way no evidence was produced before the Tribunal to prove that these documents were communicated to the appellant. In the absence of any oral or documentary evidence in support of the fact that the copy of impugned seniority list and promotion orders was communicated to the appellant, there is no justification to hold that her appeals were barred by limitation particularly when it is proved that the appellant stood posted in Girls High Court School Danna. Besides pleading specifically her knowledge from 22-12-1996, she supported her case through affidavits and statement as witness before the Tribunal. Our aforesaid view finds support from the authority of this Court recorded in Inayatulah Chaudhry's case, referred to in the earlier part of this judgment.
6. Under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act the period of limitation commences from the date of communication of the order to the aggrieved civil servant. The impugned seniority list was not circulated as is proved from the affidavits and evidence of the appellant and her witness, Mst.
Ghazlala Haidri, The limitation against the seniority list shall commence from the date when the appellant got the knowledge of the same. The promotion orders which were issued in favor of contesting respondents in furtherance to the impugned seniority list without the knowledge of the appellant can be questioned by her from the date of her knowledge. As said earlier, she has claimed that she got the knowledge about the seniority list on 22-12-1996 and this fact has not been rebutted through counter-affidavit or any evidence from the other side therefore her appeals were well in time. The Service Tribunal was not justified in dismissing her appeals on the ground of limitation.
' As the appeals have not been decided on merits therefore by accepting the appeal we are constrained to set aside the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 28-9-2000 and remand the case to the Service Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law. accordingly.