1. ' MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.--- Mr. Abrar Hassan submits that through his Petition No,98 of 2006 he has challenged the notification dated 11-2-2006 as he was aggrieved with the word "provisional" in that notification in respect to the seniority of the petitioner and since that notification has been corrected through a corrigendum, dated 22-2-2006 whereby the word "provisional" has been deleted; therefore, his grievance is over and his petition may be considered as withdrawn.
2. ' As far as the Petition No,144 of 2006 is concerned, this is in respect to challenge the corrigendum dated 22-2-2006. The argument of Mr. Mukesh Kumar G. Karara is that the corrigendum has been issued in violation of the powers of the Government as section 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act cannot be extended to utilize that power.
3. ' Mr. Abrar Hassan argued that petitioner through C.P. No,D-144 of 2006 has actually challenged the seniority of a civil servant which falls within the meanings of terms and conditions of a civil servants therefore, by virtue of Article 212 of the Constitution, the matter can only be challenged before the Service Tribunal and not before this Court. He has relied upon 1998 SCM R 1948, 1998 SCM R 2129 and 1998 SCM R 2280.
4. ' Mr. Mukesh Kumar G. Karara has relied upon 1999 SCM R 483 and stated that since section 24 has incorrectly been utilized towards issuance of corrigendum; therefore, the petition was, maintainable and that the corrigendum has been issued due to mala fide hence jurisdiction can be exercised. He has also pointed out page 59 of his petition, which is notification dated 14-12-1993 and requests that his petition be continued.
5. ' The factual position coming through these petitions is that the petitioner in C.P. No,D-98 of 2006 namely Zafarullah Mahar was appointed on 5-11-1985 as XEN. He is Graduate Engineer while his opponent Khalid Ahmed Larik was appointed on 1-11-1990 as XEN. Some notification etc. Do also appear on record proving thereby seniority of the contestants.
6. We observe that for the purpose of determination of terms and conditions of the service, several factual position in respect to appointment, transfer, option for transfer etc. As well as direction of the Government are to be assessed and keeping in view all that material seniority is to be fixed.
7. There appears to be pure contest of seniority in both the petitions and keeping in view Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan, Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction in the matter and that jurisdiction by the Tribunal is to be exercised keeping in view other necessary requirements, which are to be fulfilled as per requirements of the Service Law so before approaching the Service Tribunal grievance in the shape of a petition be submitted to the Department so before reaching the Service Tribunal matter be solved and if not, appeal be filed before Service Tribunal. Our view is based on the basis of observation given by the Honourable Supreme Court in 1998 SCM R 1948 which is reproduced below:--- "The consistent view of this Court has been that a writ petition or constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is not maintainable by a civil servant in relation to any matter connected with the terms and conditions of service in respect whereof the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction, in view of the provisions contained in Article 212 of the Constitution.'
8. ' In 1998 SCM R 2129, the Honourable Supreme Court has laid down as follows:--- "Article 199---Civil service---Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution--- Maintainability---Principles--Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is not maintainable by a civil servant in relation to any matter connected with the terms and conditions of service in respect whereof the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction, in view of Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan---Orders, even if mala fide, ultra vires or corum non judice, fell within the ambit of Service Tribunal and jurisdiction of Civil Courts including High Court is ipso facto ousted as result of barring provision of Article 212 of the Constitution---High Court, before taking any decision regarding admission of a constitutional petition and/or passing order granting interim relief will first decide the question of its jurisdiction in view of Article 212 of the Constitution and in the light of the judgments of Supreme Court on the point involved."
9. ' We do observe that authority 1999 SCM R 483 relied upon by Mr. Mukesh Kumar G. Karara is not falling exactly on the factual position involved in this case, hence cannot be relied upon.
10. We do also observe that although the Petition No,98 of 2006 has become infructuous after being remedied through the corrigendum but keeping in view that seniority which falls within the meaning of terms and conditions of the service has been challenged in that petition while that can only be determined keeping in view the factual position as well as fulfillment of requirement laid down under the Service Law; therefore, both these Petitions bearing Nos.98 of 2006 and 144 of 2006 are dismissed along with the listed applications with the observation that the petitions are barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan and the petitioners may avail remedy available in accordance with law. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.