1. S. A, MAHMOOD (CHAIRMAN.)-By this appal under section 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Appellate Tribunals) Ordinance, 1970, Mr. Abdul Hamid, appellant, who is a Senior Clerk in the Government Intermediate College, Pindigheb, claims that he is senior to Messrs Muhammad Usman, Khadim Hussain, Ahmad Khan, Muhammad Akhtar, Ejaz Hussain, Lai Khan, Saeed Ahmad Hashmi, Iqbal Hussain, Muhammad Arasib and Abdul Latif Arshad respondents 2-11 and Mr. Muhammad Rashid respondent No. 15. He is aggrieved of these respondents being shown senior to him in provisional seniority list of the ministerial staff of Rawalpindi Region published in April 1966. He claims that he has been making representations against it, but his request has not been acceded to. He, therefore, praysthat he may, be shown at the proper place and senior to theserespondents by setting aside their promotion subsequent to 14-10-55.
2. This appeal does not lie under section 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Appellate Tribunals)
3. Ordinance, 1970 which provides as under: "8. (1)" .Any Government servant aggrieved by an order of the competent authority fixing his seniority may prefer an appeal before a Tribunal within three months from the date of knowledge of such order or the date of the notification of the latest list of seniority.
(2) An appeal may be preferred to a Tribunal, within three months of the commencementof this Ordinance against such orders as were to subject matter of a suit, appeal or applica--tion which abated under subsection (3) of section 9 of this West Pakistan Civil Services (Appellate Tribunal)
4. Ordinance, 1969.
(3) An appeal filed after the period of limitation shall be dismissed but the Tribunal may, for sufficient cause shown, condone the delay. The above section authorises a Government servant aggrieved by an order of the competent authority fixing his seniority appeal before the Tribunal within three months from the date of knowledge of the order of the date of notification of the latest list of seniority. The list of which he complains was published in 1966 but not under the Ordinance and this appeal barred by time from that date and is not competent under section 8, as no list has been published. No prayer has beemade to this Tribunal for on doing the period of limitation which in any case is several years. We, therefore, hold that this appeal is not competent and dismiss as such.
5. The competent authority was required by section 5 (1) of the Ordinance to prepare and maintain separate lists of seniority of gazetted and non-gazetted Government servants under its administrative control. Such a list is to be revised once in each calendar year. If the competent authority fails to discharge its duties under section 5 or section 6, this Tribunal may, on applica-- tion made to it, or suo moto under section 7 of the Ordinance, direct the competent authority to discharge its duties within a specified period and the competent authority shall comply with such direction of the Tribunal. We direct that the competent authority shall prepare notify a list of seniority of Senior Clerks the Directorate of Education, Rawalpindi and the offices sub--ordinate thereto within three months.
6. We dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs.