1. S. A. MAHMOOD (CHAIRMAN).-By this appeal under sec--tion 8(1) of the Punjab Civil Services (Appellate Tribunals) Ordinance, 1970, Mr. Ausaf Sherwani, Assistant Director Labour Welfare prays for declaration of his seniority over respondents Nos. 3 to 5, Mr. Shaukat Danyal, Qazi Mohammad Amin and Mr. M. Mazhar, in the rank of Research Officer, or in other words in Class II Service. His prayer in substance is that his service in Class II should be reckoned from 20-12-60 and not from 8- 9-66, the date from which he has been confirmed.
2. Mr. Ausaf Sherwani, appellant, has argued his own case. The Director, Labour Welfare, and the Chairman, Public Service Commission, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are represented by Mr. A. G.
3. Hamayuri, Government Pleader. Mr. Shaukat Danyal, respondent No. 3 is present in person. Qazi Muhammad Amin, respondent No. 4 is present along with Mr. Asadullah Siddiqui, Advocate Mr. M.
4. Mazhar, respondent No. 5 is present along with Mr. Afzal Haider, Advocate, for Mr. A. S. Salam, Advocate.
5. Seniority is disputed in the rank of Class II Service.
6. Mr. Ausaf Sherwani, appellant was appointed as Research Officer on ad hoc basis on the 20th December 1960 as a department promotee, when he was Economic Investigator. In January 1961, his case was referred to the Public Service Commission for approval, on 18-7-1962, the Public Service Commission approved of his appointment on ad hoc basis subject to revision in Service Rules, but on 16-11-1962, the Public Service Commission cancelled its approval to his appointment for the reason that the post was to be filled through direct recruitment and not promotion. In consequence, the appellant was reverted on 14-1-1963 as Economic Investigator. He represented against his reversion, but to no avail. It was on 9-8-1966 that he was again promoted as Research Officer for a period of six months subject to the approval of the Public Service Commission. On 10- 2-69, the Public Service Commission agreed to his promotion as Research Officer. On 25-7-1969, he was confirmed as Research Officer w. e. f. 8-9-1966. He has further been promoted on ad hoc basis as Senior Research Officer in Class I (Junior) from 27-10-1969. On 7-1-1970, he was appointed as Assistant Director Labour Welfare in the same rank. In the Seniority List published in the official Gazette on 30-6-1970, he is shown at S. No. 4 below respondents Nos. 3 to 5 with his date of continuous appointment as 8-9-66 arid those of respondents Nos. 3 to 5 as 7-3-66, 18-1-50 and 1- 8-62.
7. The West Pakistan Labour Welfare Service Class II Rules, 1968 came into force on 19-11-1968. Prior thereto, para. 17(b) of the Integration Circular provided the date of substantive appointment as the rule of seniority. Consequently, seniority of the parties in Class II has to be determined in accordance with their dates of substantive appointment.
8. Out of th6 respondents Nos. 3 to 5, Mr. M. Mazhar has alone been confirmed in Class It w. e. f. 1-8-52, vide order dated 11-10-68. Therefore, his date of confirmation is earlier than the date of confirmation of the appellant. His date of confirmation being earlier than the date of confirmation' of the appellant, the latter cannot claim seniority over him on the basis of the date of substantive appointment.
9. Mr. Shaukat Danyal and Qazi Muhammad Amin respondents Nos. 3 and 4 having been appointed to Class II Service have not yet been confirmed, nor approved by the Public Service Commission. It may be mentioned that though Qazi Muhammad Amin has been provisionally confirmed as Labour Officer w. e. f. 17-2-62 by order dated 18-9-62, he has not yet been approved by the Public Service Commission for appointment as Labour Officer. Therefore, his provisional confirmation cannot be treated as having matured into substantive appointment as yet. It is, therefore, not possible to determine inter se seniority of the appellant vis-a-vis Mr. Shaukat Danyal and Qazi Muhammad Amin. That determination can only take place after their cases have been approved by the Public Service Commission and they have been confirmed from specified dates.
10. The appellant complained before us that the Public Service Commission had withdrawn their approval to his appointment as Research Officer on the ground that the qualifications were changed by the Director Labour Welfare, who had no authority to make this change, the competent authority being the Provin--cial Government alone. We find in fact that this is not the ground on which the Public Service Commission withdrew its approval to the appointment of the appellant in November 1962, but its approval was withdrawn for the reason that the vacancy in which appointment of the appellant was made to be filled by a direct recruit, while the appellant was a promotee, as admittedly he is. Therefore, there is no force in this contention. It is also contended that once it has been decided to fill in the vacancy by a departmental promotee, it was not open to the Department or the Public Service Commission to make any change in its method of recruitment. This contention we are unable to accept. We, therefore, hold that the appellant cannot be declared senior to Mr. Muhammad Mazhar, respondent No. 5. His seniority vis-a-vis respondents Nos. 3 and 4 will be determined by the date of their substantive appointment when they are finally approved by the Public Service Commission. We hope that their approval and confirmation will not be along delayed. 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.