1. This is an appeal filed by Mr. Riazuddin Chaudhri, a Selection Grade Stenographer, for restoration of his seniority.
2. While working as Steno in the office of the Director, Audit and Accounts, the appellant was transferred on 17-7-64 to the office of the Auditor-General, as a Stenographer. He was given the selection grade w. e. f. 10-12-68. The Auditor-General issued a seniority list of the existing Stenographers and the appellant was placed at third position. The names of the respondents did not appear in the list as they were not physically hold--ing any post in the office (Annex. `C').
3. Another seniority list was issued by the Auditor-General, whereby the appellant was placed at S. No. 3, while the respondents at S. Nos. 3 to 8 according to the date of assignment of each individual (Annexure `D'). On the basis of this list, the appellant was confirmed as Stenographer w. e. f. 17-7-64, and then as Selection Grade Stenographer on 10-12-68.
4. On 31-8-72, the Auditor-General issued a revised seniority list and the appellant was placed junior to the respondents 3 to 5 (Annexure `G'). The appellant has, therefore, contended that since the respondents joined much later than the appellant, the fixation of the seniority of the respondents over the appellant, is void and illegal. He has, therefore, requested to declare him senior to the respondents Nos. 3 to 5.
5. The learned counsel for State argued that the appellant belonged to the office of the Director, Audit & Accounts works, and was transferred to the Auditor-General in a surely temporary capacity. The earlier seniority list in which the appellant was shown senior to the respondents was prepared erroneously on the basis of assignment, viz-a-viz the date of joining the Auditor-General Office. It was revised by giving the seniority from the date of passing the assignment and not from the date of temporary transfer.
6. We have heard the arguments from both the parties in detail.
7. It is evident from the offer/letter dated 17-7-64, that the appellant was selected as a Stenographer by the Auditor-General who joined on the same day: Vide order dated 2-4-68, the appellant was assigned to the office of the Auditor-General w. e, f. 17-7-64, as a Stenographer. The seniority list prepared by the office on 31-12-68, clearly shows the date of appointment of the appellant as 17-7- 64, whereas in the case of` respondents, namely Muhammad Rashid. Muhammad Iqbal Mirza and Maqsood Ahmad Chohan, the dates are 27-4-67 and 11-10-67, respectively. It is quite clear that the appellant joined the office of the Auditor-General much earlier than all the respondents. This fact has also been admitted by one of the respondents i.e. Muhammad Iqbal Mirza, who joined on 11-10- 67 from the National Assembly Secretariat after severing all the connections. The Auditor-General has rightly fixed the seniority of the appellant and the respondents keeping in view the general rules and from the date or joining.
8. The learned counsel for State has mainly relied on the order of the Ministry of Finance dated 13th May 1972, (para. 4), in which the seniority of a person transferred from one office to another has to take effect from the dates of selection of transfer for permanent assignment in terms of para. 8(a) of the Establishment Division Office Memo. Dated 31-3-51. The argument is not convincing because the order passed in 1972 should not affect the question of seniority which was already decided in 1967. More--over, even under this order, the seniority has to be determined w. e. f. The date of selection for permanent assignment. In the instant case, the Auditor-General had selected the appellant for permanent assignment with effect from 17-7-64, although the order to this effect has been passed oil 2-4-68. This order of assignment giving effect to his permanent transfer w. e. f. 17- 7-64, has not so far been amended.
9. We, therefore, accept the appeal of the appellant and order that he is senior to the respondents, namely Muhammad Rashid, Muhammad Iqbal Mirza and Maqsood Ahmad Chauhan.
10. Maqboolur Rehman v. Auditor-General and 3 others (Appeal No. 304 (L) of 74) was heard together with this appeal. This case is slightly differ--ent inasmuch as he was a L.D.C. In tile office of the Controller, Southern Area, Karachi and was appointed oil temporary transfer as Stenotypist on 29- 10-60, in the office of Auditor-General. He was subsequently promoted and appointed as a Stenographer in the office, w. e. f. 12-11-62. Mr. Maqboolur Rehman has to get seniority amongst the Stenotypists of the Auditor-General office w. e. f. 29-10-60 when lie was appointed as Stenographer. He has to be given seniority as Stenographer w. e. f. 12-11-62, the date of his selection as Stenographer and appointment as such.
11. All the consequential benefits like confirmation and grant of selection grade as Stenographer should accrue to Messrs Riazuddin Chaudhri and Maqboolur Rehman.
12. Appeal No. 234(L) of 1975: From the facts of the case, it is evident that there were no rules of recruit--ment in regard to the post of Stenographer. Recruitment Appointment to the posts of Stenographer was made by the appointing authority through various methods, e.g. Nomination, selection, promotion, etc according to the exigencies of service.
13. In the instant case, the appellant was informed by the Director, Audit and Accounts (Works) West Pakistan, Lahore vide No. Admn./154 dated 17-7-1964, as under: "You have been selected by the Comptroller and Auditor-General as a Stenographer in the scale of 240-435 with usual allowances. You are, therefore, directed to report for duty to the Comptroller and Auditor-- General's office immediately.
14. Your recall from leave is optional. The unavailed leave will be cancel--led on your resuming duty."
15. It is apparent that the appointment was through the method of selection. The question of 'assignment' or the application of the office Memorandum No. 6/15/48, ME dated the 31st March 1951, would have arisen. If the appellant had continued as Stenographer in the present office throughout. Although the Office Order No. 1480, Estt./67-64 dated 21- 7-1964 provides for liability to reversion to the parent office and that the arrangement would be purely `temporary', it does not detract from the fact that the appointment was in the nature or `direct recruitment' by selection.
16. During the course Of arguments, it was indicated by the learned counsel for the State that in case the appellant had not been appointed to the post of Stenographer in the office of the Auditor- General, he would have ceased to hold the post of Stenographer in the parent officer; being on leave, he had already ceased to hold that post if this were so, technically he was on deputation to the office of the Auditor-General from the post of a Steno typist but not that of a Stenographer. This however, was not the case.
17. Having been treated as a direct appointee, he was given seniority from the date of recruitment and then promoted to the selection grade post of Stenographer. To my mind, the issue has been confused unnecessarily: by the expression `assigned'. It was open to the Department to revert him to the parent cadre, which option was not exercised.
18. I, therefore, hold that the appellant is a "direct recruit' appointed through the method of nomination/selection in the absence of recruitmen rules and that he would take seniority among Stenographers from the date g of appointment, the order of `assignment' initially or from a subsequent date being a misnomer. He would rank senior to persons appointed there--after viz. Respondents Nos. 3-5.
19. Appeal No. 304 (L)74--Maybool-ur-Rehman v. Auditor-General and 3 others: The petitioner, a lower Division Clerk in the office of the Comptroller Southern Area, was appointed on 29-10-1960 as a Stenotypist in the office of the Auditor-General.
20. The post of Stenotypist is not in the line of promotion of a lower Division Clerk in his parent office much less in the office of the Auditor-- General. The post. Calls for special qualifications.
21. In the absence of recruitment rules, appointment to the post could be made by nomination/selection, on the basis of a test, etc. That being the position, the initial appointment would determine entry into the cadre, the post of Stenographer, being in the line of promotion of a Steno--typist.
22. Having been appointed as a Stenotypist on 29-10-1960, he would take his seniority among stenotypists from the date of appointment as such and as Stenographer from the subsequent date of promotion, viz. 12-11-1962. There being no rules, there should be no question of any violation in regard to his promotion or seniority. The question of 'assignment' did not arise in fact even at the time of his initial appointment as Stenotypist. The question of assignment once again after promotion would not arise at all.
23. As seniority in the post of Stenographer would count from 12-11-1962, the. Appellant would rank senior to respondents Nos. 3-5.