M. SALEEM CHAUDHURY (CHAIRMAN).-BY this opal the appellant, Inspector (Weights and Measures)/Labour Officer in the Labour Depart--ment assails the seniority of respondent No. 2.
2. The brief facts of the care are that the appellant joined as Labour Inspector in the year 1964 and was promoted as Assistant Labour Officer on 31st March, 1976. Subsequently on 18th March, 1977 the appellant was detailed to serve as Inspector (W. & M.) which post carried the name scale as envisaged to the Labour Officer but the appellant was put to serve in his oven pay and grade in the aforesaid capacity. Conse--quently on 2829 August, 1977, his case came up for consideration for regular promotion as Labour Officer and he was approved, but on 6th May, 1978 he was again reverted as Assistant Labour Officer and adjusted as Inspector (W.& M.) in his own pay and grade.
As regards res--pondent No. 2, he joined the department as Assistant in the year 1956 and was appointed as Assistant Labour officer in February, 1978 rend was adjusted as Labour Officer on 31st May, 1976 in his own pay and grade. Eventually he was promoted as Labour Officer on 28th/29th August, 1977.
3. The appellant in support of his appeal contended that according to the West Pakistan Labour Welfare Service (Class II) Rules, 1968, respondent No. 2 did not qualify for promotion as Labour Officer as he did not have 10 years service as Labour Inspector or 3 years service as Assistant Labour Officer in the year 1977. It was due to this disqualification that respondent No. 2 when put to officiate as Labour Officer he was allowed the pay and grade of Assistant Labour Officer. According to the appellant at the relevant time he was obviously qualified and entitled to be promoted as Labour Officer in preference to respondent No. 2. The appellant submitted that due to some influence the relevant service rules were got amended on 22 April, 1977 in order to maketh/ th nd respondent No. 2 and the persons like him eligible for promotion. According to the appellant it was for the first time on 22 April, 1977 that promotion to the post of Labour Welfare Officer was opened to the persons having 10 years service rendered as Statistical Assistant Economic Investigator Research Assistant Legal Assistant, Head Clerk, Assistant and Stenographer. The appellant further submitted that in any case his selection was approved by the Departmental Committee with effect from 28 March 1977 whereas that of respondent No. 2 with effect from 22 April 1977 and therefore on that count he was entitled to rank senior to respondent No. 2. With these submissions the appellant pressed for acceptance of his appeal.
4. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that the appellant was never promoted as Labour Officer and instead he was put to work as Inspector (W. & M.) against an ex cadre post which did not create any right to seniority in favour of the appellant. He submitted that the appellant was promoted as Assistant Labour Officer on 31 May, 1976 and respondent No. 2 February, 1975. Thus in the lower rank the appellant was junior to respondent No. 2. He never challenged the aforesaid seniority or his appointment as such and for that reasons he was precluded to challenge the seniority of respondent No. 2 in the higher grade. Even otherwise he submitted that the appellant was reverted on 6 May, 1978 as Assistant Labour Officer and since than he was working against an ex cadre post of Inspector (W. & M) and he not being the member of the service of the Labour Welfare Officer was not entitled to question the seniority of respondent No. 2. He contended that the appellant has not challenged his reversion dated 6 May, 1978, or in any case the appeal against the same is grossly barred by time.
5. After hearing both the parties we are of the view that this appeal has no substance. The appellant has not been able to show to us that appointment of respondent No. 2 as Assistant Labour Officer was not in accordance with law. We are reluctant to allow the appellant to challenge the appointment of respondent No/2 as Assistant Labour Officer at this belated stage. Evidently the appellant No. 2 and for that reasons he was junior to him in the grade of Assistant Labour Officer. As regards the ineligibility of respondent No. 2 for appointment as Labour Officer we are again of the view that same stood removed by the amendment in the relevant rules on 22 April, 1979. The contention raised by the appellant as to motives underlying the amendment is of no material consequence. Admittedly the appointment of the appellant as Labour Officer was made after the amendment of the rules and therefore same was unassailable ors that account. As regards the contention of the appellant that his appointment to the post of Labour Officer was approved with effect from 28th March, 1978, it was factually incorrect. In fact the appellant was appointed as Inspector (W. & M.) from the aforesaid date which post has not been shown to form the part of the ex-cadre of the Labour Welfare Officer. As a matter of fact the approval for appointment to the post of Labour Welfare Officer of the appellant as well as respondent No. 2 was made tat the same meeting of the Selection Committee held on 28th/29th August, 1977. Thus the contention of the appellant is devoid of any merit.
The upshot of the above discussion is that the appellant has failed to make out any case for our interference and the appeal is accordingly rejected with costs.