' SYED IFTIKHAR-UL-ISLAM (MEMBER-I).--- Briefly the facts are that the appellant joined the service on 16-12-1969 and was promoted in B-17 on 22-2-1978. He was promoted to B-18 w,e,f, 7-9-1989 as Horticultural Officer. He was promoted to the rank of Director (B-19) on 21-9-1998. While the private respondent No,4 joined the service on 27-1-1976 as Research Assistant. He applied for the post of Deputy Director, Agriculture (B-18) to the Balochistan Public Service Commission and after selection he was given regular appointment as Deputy Director (Extension Wing) w,e,f, 16-10-1982.
He (respondent) was promoted as Director Agriculture by notification dated 8-10-1995. He was further promoted as Director-General Agriculture by notification dated 16-9-1998. The respondent No,5 joined service as Statistical Officer in B-11 (Research Wing) on 20-5-1986 and was promoted to B-16 from 6-9-1973. He applied to the Public Service Commission for the post of Deputy Director (B- 18) and after having been selected he was given appointment against the direct quota ,w,e,f, 2-3- 1977. His promotion as Director (B-19) was made w,e,f, 8-10-1995. The respondent No,6 joined service on 1-3-1965 and his promotion to the rank of Director (B-19) was made w,e,f, 8-10-1995.
2. According to the record the final seniority list of Deputy Directors was circulated in 1994. The appellant represented against his seniority position to the Government but he did not challenge the same before any legal forum. After a period of about 5 years the final seniority list of Directors was notified on 30-7-1999 against which the appellant submitted representation/appeal to the Chief Secretary on 24-8-1999, by claiming promotion to (B-19) from the year 1995 and grant of seniority over the private respondents Nos.4, 5 and 6. No response was received from the departmental authority and subsequently the appellant approached this Tribunal by filing the instant appeal on 15-12-1999.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that under the Balochistan Agriculture Department Extension Wing, (B-16 and above) Service Rules, 1983 the post of Director could be filled up from the Deputy Director with 18 years' experience in the Department, but the private respondent did not possess the required experience and was not eligible to be promoted. He further contended that the appellant possessed the required experience and was entitled to be promoted as Director (B-19) earlier to the private respondents. He lastly urged that appellant may be placed at S.No,l in the final seniority list under discussion. On behalf of private respondent No,4 the learned counsel filed written objection during the course of hearing. He contended that the appellant had failed to challenge the seniority list circulated in 1994 and also the promotion order to the rank of Director, which was issued in 1995. The learned counsel for respondent No,4 presented a ruling of the Supreme Court reported in PLD 1993 SC 10 which relates to the determination of seniority among the direct recruits and promotees in respect of quota system which is not applicable to the instant case. The learned counsel for respondent No,5 contended that claim of appellant was barred by time as he failed to challenge the promotion order issued in the year 1995. During the course of hearing it was pointed out that respondent No,6 has retired from service.
4. We have gone through the record of the case and have considered the arguments put forward on behalf of both the parties. The record has disclosed that no parawise comments were filed on behalf of official respondents. The appellant did not submit the copies of orders of his appointment, promotion to Grade (B-17), (B-18), and (B-19) in support of his appeal. He agitated his claim of seniority and promotion for the first time in the year 1995, in 1999 and remained silent throughout the period from the years 1982 to 1994. The appellant also failed to challenge the final seniority list of Deputy Directors circulated in the year 1994 before the appropriate forum. He has, however, challenged the seniority list of 1999, which was circulated on 13-7-1999. His claim of promotion to B- 18 and B-19 is hit by the bar of limitation. He should have agitated his grievance at the appropriate time before the legal forum for redressal. Moreover, the grounds of appeal are not convincing to justify the claim of promotion with retrospective effect as stated by appellant in this departmentaL appeal as well. The impugned seniority list has been prepared under the provisions of section 8(4) of the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974 and does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
5. From the above discussion we find that appellant has failed to make out his case for grant of retrospective promotion and seniority over the private respondents. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as cost.
(Sd.) Syed Iftikharul-Islam (Member-I).
'Additional views.
' SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR (MEMBER).--- In present case the appellant has only objected on seniority position assigned to the respondents Nos.4 to 6 in final seniority list notified through notification dated 30-7-1999. It is his main contention that as per Rules of 1983 for purpose 'of promotion in By19 experience of 18 years in Extension Wing is required . But contrary to the same none of respondents Nos.4 to 6 have such experience, thus, illegally promoted in B-19. Despite the fact he has more than 18 years' experience, but not considered for promotion. He claimed to be at S.No,1, in the impugned seniority list.
2. Though the appellant has claimed himself senior to that of respondents Nos.4 to 6 but he has not filed all the relevant documents: While from respondents side only respondent No,4 has filed his reply along with some documents. The official respondents have failed to file any reply, nor they have filed relevant documents, which are surely in their custody. This shows their negligence and non-interest, which is objectionable.
3. From perusal of main, appeal reply and documents present on record it is apparent that appellant as per his own showings joined service on 16-12-1969 in the department, while promoted in B-17 on 22-2-1978, in B-18 on 7-9-1989 and in B-19 on 21-9-1998. While respondent No,4 initially appointed on 27-1-1976 thereafter appointed as Deputy Director Agriculture B-18 on recommendation of Public Service Commission on 16-10-1982. While promoted in B-19 on 2-10-1995, again promoted in B-20 on 16-9-1998 superseding respondent No,5. Due to this promotion his name is not present in final seniority list. While respondent No,5 initially appointed on 20-5-1968, promoted in B-16 on 6-9-1973. Thereafter appointed as Deputy Director Agriculture B-18 on 2-3- 1977 on recommendation of Public Service Commission. Thereafter promoted in B-19 on 8-10-1995.
As such respondent No,6 was initially appointed on 1-3-1965, promoted in B-17 on 19-6-1969, promoted in B-18 on 7-1-1984 then promoted in B-19 on 8-10-1995.
4. From above detail it is apparent that the appellant has been promoted on all the mentioned posts in Extension Wing. As far as respondents Nos.4 and 5 are concerned though they have been working in same department but in Research Wing meanwhile they were appointed as Deputy Director Agriculture (Extension) B-18 on quota meant for direct recruitment on recommendation of Public Service Commission in years 1982 and 1977 respectively. The appellant never challenged their appointments being violative of any Rule or Law. Rather he only objected the final seniority list of B-18 issued in 1994 before the departmental authorities, but on rejection of the same he kept silent and did not approach this Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. Therefore, at this stage he cannot make objection on appointment of respondents Nos.4 to 6 being promoted/appointed in B-18 without having 18 years service in their credit which actually is 5 years as per Appendix of relevant Rules. Moreover, two of them, are direct appointees thus, this is not applicable in their case. As far as promotion of respondents Nos.4 to 6 in B-19 is concerned, they have been promoted in B-19 on 2-10-1995 and 8-10-1995 respectively. While appellant was promoted as such on 21-9- 1998, three years later. In case there was any violation of Rules or of respective quota in said promotions the appellant has to raise objection on the same at relevant time before departmental authorities in provided period thereafter to this Tribunal. But he kept silent uptil issuance of impugned seniority list. Though he has filed present appeal well within time after issuance of seniority list. But as he has raised objection on seniority position assigned to respondents Nos.4 to 6 in such case he has to establish his right of being senior to that of them. The only plea taken by him is to the effect that the said respondents do not fulfil the required length of-service i,e, 18 years in the Department (Extension Wing) having degree of M.Sc. In Agriculture. From perusal of the dates mentioned above it is apparent that the said respondents have been working in the Department initially in Research Wing. While on appointment as Deputy Director Agriculture B-18 they entered in Extension Wing respondent No,5 appointed as such in 1977 thus, served the said Wing for 18 years before his promotion in B-19. While respondent No,6 served for 26 years in said Wing. As far as respondent No,4 is concerned he entered Extension Wing in 1982, thus, served the Department in said Wing for 12 years. His length of service is less than provided 18 years. But presently he has been serving in B-20 since 1998 even before filing of this appeal. As relevant documents are not placed on record, therefore, it is difficult to ascertain that whether said experience was relaxed, at relevant time in case of respondent No,4 by the Authorities or what? The appellant remained silent for four years and did not agitate the promotion orders of said respondent on basis of violation of Rules.
Now at this stage after lapse of so many years he cannot agitate the matter in same respect. Even presently he is, not claiming pro forma promotion from the date when his juniors were promoted.
He is simply claiming correction of his seniority position. In previous final seniority list of 1994 he was at S.No,6, his name was below respondents Nos.4 to 6 which remains as such till present. As far as his claim of assigning him number one position in seniority impugned seniority list is concerned, he has not asserted specifically on what basis he is claiming his seniority over and above the said respondents. Nor he has established his contention.
5. The appeal is rightly rejected by learned Member-I. The appellant has completely failed to make out any case in his favour.