M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).-------By this appeal instituted on 13-7-1976, the appellant an Instructor in Urdu Shorthand and Typewriting at the Government Commercial Training Institute, Rahim Yar Khan, claims to be promoted to the post of Instructor in Urdu Shorthand and Typewriting w.e.f. 16-11-1966 and on that basis claims to be treated as senior to respondents Nos. 3 and 4.
2. For facility of comparison, the service particulars of the appellant and the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are reproduced below:- .
Sl.
No.NameDate of join- ing service as Jr. Instructor.Date of passing Urdu Shorthand And Typewriting Examination.Ranking in Senior--ity List Dated 2-2-1967.
12 3 4 5 1Mr. Waqar-ul-Islam. 15-1-1963 1968 2Mr. Habib Ahmad Malik. 7-2-1963 Earlierthan 1966 13 3Mr. Muhammad Hussain Malik.8-9-1964 Earlierthan 1967 16 Date of Ad hoc promotion as Instructor.Date of regular promotion as Instructor Urdu Shorthand and Typewriting.
6 7 17-11-1966 1-6-1976 2 7-2-1966 3 8-6-1967
3. The appellant, however, claims that he was appointed as Junior Instructor at the Government Commercial Training Centre. Bahawalpur, in place of his predecessor Ahmad Hussain, who was an Instructor in Urdu Shorthand. He also claims that he acquired the qualifications in Urdu Shorthand on 5-1-1957. Reliance was placed in this behalf on the certificate issued by Syed Ahmad Hussain, a Lecturer of the Sadiq Commercial Training Institute, Bahawalpur, available at page 14 of this appeal. He also placed reliance upon the Certificate 1955-56 Session (page 15 of Appeal) issued by the Inspector of Schools Bahawalpur Division, on 26-10-1966, according to which the appellant passed Shorthand Examina--tion at the speed of 80 words per minute. The appellant thus submitted that his promotion as Instructor though on act hoe basis w.e.f. 19-11-1966, should be regularised and he be granted seniority on that basis. He submitted that he has been consistently representing against the same, but instead of accepting his representation, he was appointed as Urdu Shorthand Instructor for Urdu Shorthand Typewriting at the Government Commercial Training Institute, Rahim Yar Khan, w.e.f. 1-6-1976. He has also placed reliance on certain Seniority Lists issued by the department according to which the appellant has been shown senior to respondents Nos. 3 and 4. Thus- he claims that his case for pro formd promotion may be considered.
4. The department and the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the letter of appointment of the appellant as Junior Instructor w.e.f 15-1-1963, Annexure `B' to appeal, was conspicuously silent as to the category of his appointment. According to the department, to start with he was appointed as Junior Instructor, English Shorthand and Typewriting and not in Urdu Shorthand and Typewriting, as he did not have the requisite qualifications. They submitted that he acquired the qualifica--tions in Urdu Shorthand and Typewriting on 2-2-1968 as per certi--ficate dated 10-2-1970, issued by the West Pakistan Board of Technical Education, Lahore-Certificate of Commerce Examination (Short Course) Session 1968 (Annexure IV to the Written Comments of the department) and in fact he was promoted as Instructor, English Shorthand and Type--writing on ad hoc basis in 1966. Subsequently, the case of the appellant for regular promotion as Instructor, English Shorthand and Typwriting, was recommended by the Director, Technical Education, Karachi Region, but he could not be accommodated due to the non-availability of the vacancy on the subject. It was pointed out that after his appointment as Junior Instructor, the appellant was allocated to Karachi Region and he continued to serve at Hyderabad. It was only after the dissolution of West Pakistan that he was appointed as such at 'the Government Commercial Training Institute, Rahim Yar Khan. The department further submitted that the appellant had no case to compete with the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 who had acquired the qualifications in Urdu Shorthand and Typewriting much earlier than the appellant and they were appointed as Instructors w.e:f. 7-2-1966 and 8-9-1967, respectively with due approval of the Punjab, Public Service Commission. The orders to that effect were issued on 20-8-1971 by the Government of the Punjab, Education Department. It was further pointed out that the representation of the appellant stood already rejected on 3-1-1976 and the appellant was duly informed to that effect. Thus the appeal preferred by the appellant on 13-7-1976 was clearly barred by time.
5. We have heard both the parties and gone through the record of the case. We find that the appellant has failed to establish that he had obtained prior to 1968 the qualifications in Urdu Shorthand and Type--writing from any recognised institution. The reliance of the appellant on the certificate issued by Syed Ahmad Hussain, Lecturer of the Sadiq Commercial Training Institute, Bahawalpur, dated 5-1-1957, does not appear to comply with the requirements of law. It has not been shown to us that Syed Ahmad Hussain was in any way authorised to issue the certificate in question or the certificate issue should have been recognised for making the appointment. The other document placed on the record by the appellant dated 25-10-1956 issued by the Inspector of Schools, Bahawalpur Division, vide entry No. 3 shows the Shorthand speed at the rate of 80 W. P. M.
But this Commercial Deploma also failed to show that the appellant had acquired the speed in Urdu Shorthand and Typewriting. Thus this docu--ment also fails to establish the claim of the appellant that he had acquired the qualifications in Urdu Shorthand and Typewriting at the relevant time. On the other hand, the document relied upon by the respondent namely Annexure IV, to the written comments, shows that the appellant had passed the Urdu Shorthand and Typewriting Course at the speed of 70 W. P. M. In the examination held by the West Pakistan Board of Technical Education, Lahore in Session 1968. If the appellant was already qualified it does not stand to reason that he would need to acquire the same qualifications for the second time. The contention of the department appears to be well founded that he acquired the qualifications in Urdu Shorthand and Typewriting for the first time in 1968. Thus he was not eligible for appointment to the post of Instructor in Urdu Shorthand and Typewriting on 7-2-1966 and 8-9-1967, when the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were so appointed. It was pointed out that according to rule 10(c) of the Recruit--ment Rules, 1967, the appellant was not eligible for appointment. Even otherwise, we find that the appeal is barred by time. The representation of the appellant was rejected on 3-1-1976 and the letter was sent to him directly which is presumed to have reached the appellant within a week or so. Thus the appeal filed on 13-7-1976, is grossly barred by time.
6. Consequently, the appeal fails both on merits as well as on the ground of limitation and is, therefore, dismissed with costs.