1. GHULAM RASOOL SHEIKH (CHAIRMAN)-----.This appeal has been filed under section 4 of Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973 claiming seniority against respondents Nos. 3 to 8.
2. The appellant was appointed as Senior Lecturer in the Government College for Men. Nazimabad, Karachi, on 18th November, 1956. At that time Karachi was under the Administration of the Central Government. The respondents ware appointed as Lecturers in Sind prior to the integration of Sind into West Pakistan.. Subsequently they were transferred to D. J. Government College, Karachi, Government College of Commerce and Economics, Karachi, and M. J. V. Government High School, Karachi which were under the administration of Sind Government although these institutions were in Karachi. In 1961 Karachi was merged in West Pakistan and, therefore, all the institutions at Karachi were taken over by that Government and were controlled by the Director Education, Hyderabad Region stationed at Karachi. It was laid down by the integration Circular No. 87 Intg. 55/4471 dated 25th November, 1955 that the officers belonging to the former Khairpur State, Sind and Karachi were grouped into sub cadre `B' and the promotions were to be governed by pre-integration percentage, After integration all officers who were holding the posts of Lecturers became Class-II officers under the Government of West Pakistan. On 21-12-1961 an order was issued by the Secretary Education Department, Government of West Pakistan transferring educational institutions in Karachi from the control of Director of Education. Hyderabad Region to the Director of Education, Karachi, with effect from 1-1-1962. Certain notifications were issued confining the promotions to Regions, i. e. Karachi Hyderabad, Quetta, Lahore, Rawalpindi and Peshawar. Option was sought from the various officer for serving in one or the other Regions. The respondents opted for Karachi Region although initially they came from Sind Excluding Karachi.
3. In 1966 some Lecturers in Sind were promoted with effect from 10-8-1980 while the cases of the respondents were not considered as they were posted in Karachi. They were, however, promoted in 1969 against the posts available in Karachi. Subsequently the impugned seniority list dated 13-2- 1970 was issued and the respondents were shown junior to those who were promoted in Sind on prior dates. Consequently the respondents filed an appeal in the Sind Civil Services Appellate Tribunal constituted under the West Pakistan Civil Service (Appellate Tribunals) Ordinance, 1969.
4. Their appeals were dismissed on the ground, that since the respondents in those appeals were promoted earlier, the seniority list which had been prepared on the basis of these promotions could not be interfered with by the Tribunal. However, it was observed that since the respondents were working in Karachi Region and they had also opted for that Region and the vacancies against which the promotions have been granted had occurred in Hyderabad Region from the date prior to the option as well as the rules which had been framed confining the promotions to the Regions, their cases were not considered and it was unfortunate that the orders for promotions were not passed at the time when the vacancies occurred and if that bad been done certainly they would have been promoted in preference to those against whom they claimed seniority. It may be pointed out that the promotions in Sind were made in 1966 retrospectively. On the basis of this view a recommendation was made to the Department to consider their case in order to eliminate the perpetration of injustice. In view of this recommendation the promotion of various officers serving in Sind including the present respondents was re-opened and the respondents were promoted retrospectively. Consequently they became senior to the appellant.
5. The contention of the appellant is that since the respondents were junior to him in the lower grade they could not become senior to him simply because their promotions was given effect prior to the date of his promotion. We find no force in this contention as from the statement of facts it is plash enough that the respondents were entitled to he promoted front the dates, when the vacancies in Sind had occurred as they were originally appointed in Sind and continued to remain under the Sind Government and subsequently came under the West Pakistan Government in 1955 whereas Karachi was Centrally Administered Area and it came under the administrative control of West Pakistan Government only in 1961 and, therefore, any person serving in Karachi when it was Centrally Administered Area could not claim aright of promotion against the post which bad fallen vacant in Sind. Only those persons were entitled to be promoted in Sind who were actually borne o the list of the employees of the Sind Government. So by virtue of their promotion from a date prior to the promotion of the appellant the reason--dents certainly became senior to the appellant.
6. It was further urged by the appellant that the last seniority list was issued in the year 1971 and in that he was shown senior to the respondents but they did not challenge it. Even this does not help him as the order regarding their promotion was passed subsequently when the observation in respect of the hardship was made by the previous Tribunal. Thus they could not challenge that seniority list.
7. We asked the appellant whether he expected any further promotion or was to suffer any monetary loss in case the seniority of respondent was maintained. He replied in the negative. Thus he does not suffer in any manner except the state that he wanted the seniority for personal prestige.
8. Apart from this, the impugned orders were issued in January, 1976 and January, 1977 whereas the present appeal was filed in February, 1978. So it is clearly time barred and there is no application for condonation of delay. Secondly the appeal suffered from another serious infirmity inasmuch as the impugned orders were passed promoting the respondents by the Secretary of Education, Government of Sind and against his decision no departmental appeal was filed which was a condition precedent. In the absence of the departmental appeal the present appeal is not maintainable.
9. In result the appeal is dismissed.