KHAWAJA GHULAM QADIR (MEMBER).--Appellant Syed Aftab Hussain Shah filed this appeal in the Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act, 1975 challenging therein validity of the order No. Revenue Commissioner 6353-62 dated 13th November, 1975 made by Revenue Commissioner Azad Jammu & Kashmir respondent No. 1 whereby respondent No. 2 was promoted to the post of Naib Tehsildar disregarding the seniority of appellant.
2. The brief facts which resulted in this service appeal are that the appellant was temporarily appointed as Girdawar by the Revenue Commissioner vide Order No. RA/III/637/5812-13 dated 16th September, 1966 and his services were placed at the disposal of Chief Conservator Forest for being posted in the Demarcation Division. Subsequently the Revenue Commissioner vide his order dated 16th September, 1970 treated the appellant on the quota of Girdawar Qanoongos of Poonch District and directed Deputy Commissioner, Poonch that the appellant be appointed against any vacant post of Girdawar in the District whereupon in com--pliance of Revenue Commissioner's direction the Deputy Commissioner Poonch placed the appellant on the strength of Girdawars of District Poonch vide his Order No. 14355-37/GB dated 16th November, 1971 and also kept the lien or the appellant in the Poonch District. Later, on the reduction of the Forest Demarcation Division the Revenue Commissioner vide his order No. 892/74 dated 7th February, 1973 ordered that appellant be appointed as Girdawar against a vacant post if any, or reverting the junior most Girdawar whereupon the Deputy Commis--sioner Poonch vide his order dated 13th February, 1973 reverted the Junior post Girdawar and appointed appellant against the vacancy so caused.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Poonch published seniority list of Girdawars of District Poonch on 1st August. 1973 wherein the date of appointment of the appellant was shown as 17th September, 1966 and the appellant was placed at S. No. 9 on the seniority list. The Revenue Commissioner, also published a consolidated seniority list of all the Girdawars of Azad Kashmir in 1973 in which the appellant was shown at S. N.
17. The Revenue Commissioner respondent No. 1 vide his impugned order dated 15November, 1975 promoted Ch. Muhammad Aslam respondent No. 2 to the post of Tehsildar against which order the appellant in appeal which remained undecided.
4. It is in these circumstances that the appellant has filed this appeal taking exceptions to the impugned order on the following grounds :--
(i) That in the consolidated seniority list of Girdawars of Azad Kashmir the name of the appellant finds place at S. No. 17 whereas the name of respondent No. 2 does not figure anywhere --in this seniority list.
(ii) That the appellant was better qualified educationally and was senior to respondent No. 2 but the respondent was promoted is clear disregard of the seniority of the appellant violating provisions of sub-clause (2) of Article 24 of the Kashmir Seri Regulations.
5. Finally the appellant prayed that-
(a) he be declared senior-respondent No. 2.
(b) the promotion of the respondent No. 2 to the post of Naib-Tehsildar be declared null and void against the rights of the appellant and respondent No. 1 be directed to promote the appellant to the post of Naib-Tehsildar w. e. f. 15th November, 1975 with all benefits.
6. The respondent No. 2 was duly served but he failed to appear on fixed date of hearing for which reason ex parse proceedings were taken against him. The counsel for respondent No. 1 appeared and was ordered to file written objections but he did not file written objections in spite of a number of adjournments.
7. The appellant examined himself as witness and also produced document Exh. P. A. In support of his claim.
8. The arguments of the appellant and counsel for respondent No. 1 were heard and the record of the appeal was examined by us.
9. In his statement dated 2nd January, 1980 the appellant Syed Aftab Hussain Shah stated that he was promoted to the post of Naib---Tehsildar during the pendency of his appeal and as such he did not want any relief of promotion as prayed in the appeal and rather limited the scope of his appeal to the declaration of his seniority as against respondent No. 2. As stated by the appellant the question of promotion of the appellant now needs no consideration and the only point to be resolved remains the question of the seniority of the appellant viz-a-viz reason--dent No. 2. The appellant claimed that he was appointed as Girdzwar in the Revenue Department on 16th September, 1966 and the respondent No. 2 was promoted to the post of Grdawar in 1969. In support of leis version the appellant has placed on record a copy of seniority register of Girdawar Qanoogos of District Poonch maintained from 1st July, 1972 to 30th June, 1976 (Annexure F) wherein the appellant has been shown at S. No. 9 but else name of the respondent No. 2 does not figure anywhere is this document. Similarly the name of respondent No. 2 finds no mention in the consolidated list of seniority of Girdawar of Azad Kashmir prepared by the Revenue Commissioner in 1973 whereas the name of appellant falls at S. No. 17 in this list. In both the seniority lists the date of first entry into service of appellant as Girdawar is entered as 16th September, 1966. On the other hand the appellant produced document Exh. P. A. Also which is a copy of seniority list of Girdawar maintained by the Settlement Department where the respondent No. 2 was serving at the time of preparation of this list. In this list the respondent No. 2 Ch. Muhammad Aslam has been placed on S. No. 9 and date of his promotion as Girdawar is shown as 3rd February, 1967. Reading all these seniority lists together i.e. Seniority list Annexure 'F' maintained by the Revenue Departmentth seniority list Exh. P. A. Maintained by the Settlement Department it becomes evident that the appellant was appoint--ed as Girdawar in the Revenue Department on 16th September, 1966 whereas respondent No. 2 Ch. Muhammad Aslam was promoted to the post of Girdawar in Settlement Department on 3rd February, 1967. These entries regarding the appointment of the parties to the past of Girdawars were not rebutted by respondent No. 1. Thus there remains no doubt that the appellant was senior to respondent No. 2 at the time of promotion of the latter.
10. For the reasons stated above we hold that at the time of passing the impugned order of promotion of respondent No. 2 the appellant was senior to him in the cadre of Girdawars.
11. In the circumstances of the case no order as to costs is made.
The pieties shall be informed of this order.