1. S. A. M.AHMOOD (CHAIRMAN).- By this appeal under section 8 (1) of the Punjab Civil Services (Appellate Tribunals) Ordinance, 1970, fir. Alam Khan, Divisional Head Clerk claims sonority in the rank of Head Clerk over Mian Ghulam Ahmad, Stenographer, Respondent No.2.
2. It is not disputed that seniority has to he determined on the basis of continuous appointment under West Pakistan Irrigation Department Ministerial Service (Circle) Rules, 1964. The seniority of the parties inter se is to be determined under the Note in the Appendix to the rules, which provides as follows:-- "A common seniority list shall be maintained of Head Clerks and Stenographers for the purpose of promotion to the posts of Superintendents; provided that notwithstanding anything ,a contained in clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of rule 9, where the date of continuous service of Head Clerk and a Stenographer is the t; same, the Head Clerk shall be deemed to be senior ,to the Stenographer."
3. The date of appointment of the appellant as Head Clerk being 30-3-57 and the appointment of the respondent No. 2 as Steno--grapher being 1-3-54, respondent No. 2 has correctly been placed senior to the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant however, contended that seniority should be counted in the service as Head Clerk and Stenographer by benefit of total service, but this contention cannot be accepted. We have decided~ this question in the case of Amir Muhammad v. Superintending Engineer, Thal Canal Circle, Mianwali No. 440/232 of 1970, decided on 6-1-71. That case being similar to the case in hand, we cannot accept the contention.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the appointment of respondent No. 2 as Stenographer being by the Superintending Engineer and not by the Chief Engineer, his promotion is not valid and he has no right of seniority from the date of his appointment. The appellant has not, however, produced a copy of the order of appointment or any other material to support his contention. We cannot accept the con--tention that having been appointed as Stenographer since 1954, the irregularity in his promotion has remained undetected. We must presume under section 114 of the Evidence Act that all official acts have been regularly performed. No other contention has been raised. For the reasons stated above we hold that there is no force in this appeal, which is dismissed in limine.