1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.-This order will govern Civil Petitions Nos. 55-R and 57-R of 1980, filed by Abdul Ghaffar against Muhammad Ramzan and Jamal Khan Jaffar; and Civil Petitions 56-R, 58-R and 59-R of 1980, filed by Rahim Shah against Muhammad Ramzan, Jamal Khan Jaffar and Muhammad Hassan Jogezai. These petitions arise from the common order of the Baluchistan Service Tribunal, Quetta, dated 12th of April,- 1980, by which the appeals of the respondents herein were accepted.
2. The petitioner in Civil Petitions 55-R and 57-R of 1980 was a Naib, Teshildar and he was selected for the post of Tehsildar on 'list of September, 1972, by the Selection Committee and by order dated 24th of October, 1972 of the Board of Revenue, he was sent to Khuzdar for usual training. As he had already an experience of two years as Naib-Tehsildar, his period of training was reduced to 6 months by the Board of Revenue, by its order dated 23rd of November, 1972. He completed his training on 30th May, 1973, and on the same date, by an order of the Member, Board of Revenue, his services were dispensed with along with the others and he was sent back as Naib-Tehsildar. He made a representation to the Governor and finally sent a reminder dated 17th of January, 1976, for its disposal. In the mean-- time, the Board of Revenue, by its order dated 23rd of June, 1975, granted him accelerated promotion; and on 30th of January, 1976, the Governor, by an order, restored his original selection and gave to him the seniority with effect from 30th of May, 1973. In the seniority list of Tehsildars dated 23rd of June, 1975, his name was omitted as the order of reversion held the field. However, after the restoration of his original seniority, he made an application for its re-fixation and in the seniority list dated 25th of March, 1978, he was placed at Serial No. 98-B While respondent. Muhammad Ramzan, at Serial No. 99. Respondent Jamal Khan Jaffar's name appeared at Serial No. 106. Again, in the regular seniority list, published on 23rd of September, 1979, the petitioner's name appeared at Serial No. 88, while the name of Muhammad Ramzan and Jamal Khan Jaffar appeared at Serial Nos. 87 and 95 respectively. These respondents represented to the Govern-- ment but they were directed to seek remedy from the Baluchistan Service Tribunal, Quetta. Accordingly, they filed appeals and were successful as aforestated.
3. In Civil Petitions 56-R, 58-R and 59-R of 1960, the petitioner was appointed as Naib-Tehsildar on 13th of October, 1967, and selected for the post of Tehsildar by the Selection Committee on 21st of September, 1972. On 2 1 st of March, 1973, he was exempted from further training as Tehsildar on account of his past experience and qualification, and was directed to take charge of the post which he did. By order dated 30th of May, 1973, he was also retired; and against that order he represented to the Governor but his representation was rejected. He filed an application for its review on 10th of January, 1974, which was accepted by the Governor by order dated 20th of August, 1975, and he was given seniority with effect from 21st of March, 1975. In the provisional list of seniority, his name stood at Serial No. 98-A and in the final list at Serial No. 37. Respondents, Muhammad Ramzan, Jamal Khan Jaffar and Muhammad Hassan Jogezai, were placed below him in these lists. Accordingly, they also filed appeals to challenge the seniority of the petitioner and were successful.
4. The Baluchistan Service Tribunal, without setting aside the orders of the Government, dated 10th of January, 1974, and 30th of January, 1976, re--instating them as Tehsildars, with effect from 21st of March, 1973, and 30th of May, 1973, has interfered with their seniority on the basis that as they were promoted in 1975, they could not be given seniority from back date when "actually they were not performing the functions as Tehsildars"
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that until the orders dated 10th of January, 1975, and 30th of January, 1976, which gave to the back dated seniority, were not set aside, the consequential orders, fixing their A seniority from that date, could not be interfered with. This and the other grounds raised in the petitions require consideration. Accordingly, we would grant leave to appeal to the petitioners.
6. Security for costs Rs.500, in each case. The appeals arising out of these petitions should be heard on the present record at an early date with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if any.
7. Notice to the Advocate-General, Baluchistan, for the interim relief prayed.