' JUSTICE (R) ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH (CHAIRMAN).---Appellant Attiqullah Khan joined Irrigation Department as Sub-Engineer (Mechanical) in the year, 1971. During the service in the year, 1981 he acquired B.Tech (Hons) degree. Then as per Notification of Ministry of Education Government of Pakistan dated 17-4-1996 issued on the basis of judgment of Honourable apex Court passed in suo motu Review Petition No,52 of 1993 declaring degree of B.Tech (Hons) at par with the degree of B.E, appellant and many others vide Notification dated 18-12-1997 were assigned seniority from the date of acquiring degree of B.Tech (Hons). Meanwhile, appellant was allowed B-16 and was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer vide - Notification dated 11-3-1997. And vide order dated 7-8-2001 he was also allowed move-over to B-18 as stated in the memo of appeal after issuance of seniority list dated 28-1-1998 as stood on 1-8-1990. The Department for about 13 years could not issue/circulate any other seniority list. However, vide notification dated 18-6-2003 a provisional seniority list of Graduate Assistant Executive Engineers was issued wherein the appellant's name was missing. Being aggrieved, he filed objection to that seniority list, but vide letter dated 23-7- 2003 he was advised to prefer appeal against the provisional seniority list, which he preferred on 11- 8-2003. Subsequently thereto, separate provisional seniority list of Assistant Engineers holders of B.Tech (Hons) degrees was circulated vide letter dated 18-10-2003 and the officers concerned were advised to prefer appeal, if aggrieved, under rule 4 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1980.
As advised, appellant prefer separate appeal against this seniority list also and on getting no response within stipulated period of 90 days, he filed the instant appeal.
2. The office raised objection to the effect that provisional seniority lists are provisional which being not a final order, therefore, the appeal within the meaning of section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunal Act, 1973 is not maintainable.
3. To meet this objection raised by Registrar learned counsel for the appellant argued the matter at some length and also filed written submission. He contended that although the impugned seniority lists are not the original final orders yet the letter dated 23-7-2003 advising appellant to prefer appeal under rule 4 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1980 is a final order, the instant appeal is thus maintainable and competent.
4. As we have confined the hearing of the instant appeal to the preliminary objections regarding the maintainability and competency of appeal, we need not advert to the merits of the claim of the appellant. As is evident from the perusal of the covering letters dated 18-6-2003 and 18-10-2003 and the two seniority lists coupled with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant so also his written submission, there is no denial for the fact that these seniority lists being provisional are not final orders within the meaning for section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973, notwithstanding the omission that the department invited objections from the officers concerned in the shape of appeal as provided under Rule 4 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appeal)
Rules, 1980. Undisputedly, the right of appeal before this Tribunal has been conferred by subsection
(1) of section 4 only against a "final order whether original or appellate". A final order has the distinction of determining the rights of the parties. Where any further step is necessary to perfect an order, in this case, the disposal of the objections received or finalization of the provisional seniority list, the order cannot be taken to be final. An order may be final, if it determines the rights of the parties, concludes the controversy so far as a particular authority or forum is concerned notwithstanding what such an order may be open to challenge in appeal etc. This aspect of the concept of the finality of an order has been taken care of by adding the words "whether original or appellate" in the enacted law itself. Reference is invited to the case of S.H.M. Rizvi and 5 others v.
Maqsood Ahmad and 6 others PLD 1981 SC 612. Similar was the view taken in, the case of Shafiullah Qureshi and others v. Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and others, 1994 PLC (C.S) 1400.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the firm opinion that this appeal is premature as final seniority list is yet to be issued. The letter dated 23-7-2003 advising the appellant to prefer an appeal as provided under the Sindh Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1980 has no legal sanctity. The department may treat the appeals filed by the appellant as objections to the provisional seniority lists and finalize the seniority lists in accordance with law as early as possible. The appellant would, however, be at liberty to challenge the final seniority list, if aggrieved, after availing departmental remedy.
6. With the above observation, appeal is disposed of being premature.