' JAVED IQBAL, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2-10- 2001 passed by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby appeal preferred on behalf of Sajjad Hussain Bhattl (respondent) has been accepted by declaring him senior to M/s. Taj Muhammad and Tariq Mahmood, Stenographers.
2, Briefly stated the facts of the case as enumerated in the impugned judgment are to the effect that "appeal has been filed by the appellant claiming seniority over respondents Nos.3 and 4 mainly on the ground that he (appellant) had been working as Stenographer/BS-12 w,e,f, 10-12- 1985 whereas the respondent No,3 was working as Stenotypist uptil 24-12-1985 when the post of Stenotypist was converted into post of Stenographer under a general notification dated 24-12-1985 issued by the Government of the Punjab, S&GA Department. The appellant states that in spite of the junior position held by the respondents, respondent No,3 was promoted as Superintendent in 1990 but the appellant being eligible and senior was ignored. It is also claimed that the appellant had been shown illegally as junior in the tentative seniority list dated 26-9-1989 and the appellant had made a representation against the said seniority list which was not finalised but even then the respondents were promoted earlier." The tentative seniority list issued on 26-9-1989 was challenged .But with no avail and departmental appeal was rejected vide order dated 2-10-1996 which was conveyed to him on 6-11-1996 and the same was assailed before the learned Punjab Service Tribunal by means of appeal bearing No,1796/96 which has been accepted.
3. Heard Mr. Aziz Ahmad Chughtai, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner who mainly confined his contention to the notification of even number dated 24-12-1985 whereby M/s. Taj Muhammad and Tariq Mahmood (Stenographers) were declared senior. It is next contended that seniority position could be changed subject to availability of lawful justification which was available in view of the said notification.
4. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Lahore Zone, Lahore, (petitioner) in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. We have minutely perused the judgment impugned. Admittedly Sajjad Hussain Bhatti (now respondent) was Stenographer (BS-12) on 10-12-1985 whereas Taj Muhammad remained as Stenotypist till 24-12-1985. The post of Stenotypist was converted/redesignated to that of Stenographer. A tentative seniority list was issued on 26-9-1989 wherein Taj Muhammad was shown senior whose seniority position was challenged by respondent by means of representation which could not be decided for the reasons best known to the department. Taj Muhammad was also promoted without deciding the question of seniority which being a scared and vested right cannot be infringed without any rhyme and reason.
5. The principle concerning the vested right of seniority was discused in case titled Bashir Ahmed Khan v. Muhammad Ali Khan (PLD 1960 SC 195) wherein it was held as follows:-- "(1) Every officer in a graded service has a vested right to a proper place in the seniority list.
(2) This is of the highest importances to him, as well as to the maintenance of proper discipline and order within the service, and consequentially to the public interest which is deeply involved in the maintenance of a proper spirit of order and discipline within the service.
(3) The giving, by the High Court of a considered interpretation of the rules by which the somewhat complex question of placement, upon the same list of officers who entered the list through different channels, so far from being inconvenient interference with the day-to-day control of the service by Government, is indeed an action calculated to assist the Government in exercising such control peacefully and harmoniously.
(4) Seniority rules are not of the same nature and quality as the great body of departmental rules applicable to the conduct of officers and other such matters relating to the service as a whole, which are capable of being altered by the Government. These rules are of the highest validity and have the quality of setting the important matter of seniority among officers of service.
6. We are conscious of the fact that promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right because seniority itself can never infer an absolute right of promotion irrespective of other considerations but it does not mean that the factum of seniority should be ignored without any justification. Every civil servant has a right to be considered for promotion and the giving and refusing of promotion is a matter which is within the exclusive discretionary domain of the authority concerned but such discretion is to be exercised judiciously. The notification dated 25-8-1983 had only changed the nomenclature and redesignated the post of Stenotypist to the Stenographer and thus it has no substantial bearing whatsoever on the question of seniority. No retrospective effect could be given to the said notification which is clear from the language in which it was couched and the words "to be redesignated as Stenographer" have been used which speaks about future. The said notification has been misconstrued and misinterpreted. There is no denying the fact that Sajjad Hussain Bhatti (respondent) was appointed earlier as Stenographer and would be senior to all those Stenotypists who were subsequently appointed and redesignated as Stenographers later on.
' In the light of what has been discussed herein above the conclusion as drawn by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal is strictly in accordance with law and hardly calls for any interference. The petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.