' S. ABDUL 3ABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-The appellant, Muhammad Salahuddin Khan Sumbel has filed an appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Member Board of Revenue and the Full Board of Revenue as respondents. By virtue of this appeal it has been prayed that the appeal be accepted and respondents be directed to consider the case of the appellant for regularisation of his promotion as Tehsildar from the due date and from the date earlier than the date of his juniors. It is Anther prayed that the order dated 10th August, 1979 in so far as it denies the right of being considered and right of promotion and contravenes the relevant provisions of the Tehsildari Service Rules and also the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointments & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 be set aside and respondents be directed to include appellant's name at proper place.
2. Frief facts of the case are that the appellant was selected as A-Class Naib-Tehsildar with effect from 1st May, 1968. He continued in service and passed the prescribed departmental examination on 5th March, 1971. A seniority list was notified by the respondents on 30th May, 1974 placing the appellant at serial No, 180 when it was found that one Zafar Abbas Lahli who was for steps junior to the appellant in the aforesaid Seniority list was promoted, for the reason that the appellant had not yet qualified the departmental examination. He brought this omission to the notice of the authorities and he was promoted as Tehsildar. Although the appellant had been promoted but his seniority was not fixed vis-a-vis the date of his passing the departmental examination. This resulted into a number of reversions from the Tehsildars to Naib Tehsildars and ultimately culminated in the regularisation of promotion of Naib Tehsildar who were much junior to the appellant. This injustice, according to the appellant, has been admitted vide order dated 18th August, 1979 .
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleads assisted by the departmental representative and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that according to the rules and the law settled on this point that a Naib Tehsildar who clears successfully the prescribed departmental examination of Tehsildar would stand duly qualified for promotion as Tehsildar.
According to the learned counsel this fact had occurred in the month of March, 1973, therefore, the promotion of Zafar Abbas Lahli was an injustice inflicted upon the appellant as the former was for steps junior to him. A grievance has been made of the fact that the impugned order has perpetrated this injustice by promoting 14 persons without considering the appellant for the same and on the basis of that these Naib Tehsildars were promoted earlier before it came to the notice of the authorities that the appellant was at par with them after having qualified the prescribed departmental examination. Reliance has been placed on Government's own instructions on the subject vide letter No, S.
0. R. II (S&GAD)2-52/73 dated 16th October, 1973. The applicable clause in the case of the appellant has been stated as para. 4 of the said letter, relevant portion of which is reproduced for ready reference :- "Pro forma promotion is generally granted in the typical cases mentioned below :- (I)
4. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader relying on the parawise comments by the respondents has raised a preliminary issue that the appeal was time barred. As regards to the merits it was contended that although the appellant was eligible for consideration to the post of'
Tehsildar after passing the departmental examination but the same was subject to the availability of a vacancy on his turn and according to his seniority. According to the Government Pleader the appellant could not claim seniority with those who bad already been promoted because the posting of the appellant was on ad hoc basis. In this context he has quoted the example of Alauddin claiming that said Alauddin was senior to the appellant, therefore, appellant had to revert being an ad hoc appointee. However, the learned Govt. Pleader has failed to repell the crucial issue, i. e., when other ad hoc appointees were regularised the authorities have given no reason for ignoring the appellant at that time when appellant was senior to all of' them by virtue of the seniority list notified by the department itself. The arguments advanced by the learned Government Pleader do not In any way further the case of the respondents particularly when we find that the order dated. 18th August, 1979 issused by the Board of Revenue itself justifies the regularisation of the adhoc appointments of the MIR) Tehsildars to the rank of Tehsildar on the basis of seniority. The seniority list before us clearly reveals that the appellant was senior to these persons who were promoted. In para. 3 of the grounds of appeal we find that a categorical allegation was made that the respondents had omitted the claim of the appellant and this position is conceded by the respondents in their parawise comments. This admission attracts sub-clause
(iv) of para. 4 of Govt. Letter dated 16th October, 1973, already mentioned above, which is absolutely clear on this point. According to this sub-clause it would be a rare case where an official might be ignored for promotion due to clerical error or plain negligence. It would be useful to point out at this stage that the examination of the record has revealed that the appellant was never declared unfit for promotion as the list of such persons which is a part of the impugned order does not contain the name of the appellant. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was ignored because of his unsatisfactory performance during his service. In the nutshell the case of the respondent is that the assumption with regard to the promotion of appellant's juniors was only for the reason, as given in the parawise comments of the Department that they being earlier ad hoc promotees, therefore, they had a right to be regularised from an earlier date, is fallacious. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for appellant. That the promotion was made due to an omission on the part of the department who had not taken into consideration the fact that the appellant had qualified the prescribed examination at the appropriate A time. We are strengthened in or view, as stated in the earlier part of this judgment, that the seniority list notified by the department clearly places the appellant senior to all such promotees (list at Annex. 'Al.
5. In the light of the above we direct the respondents to consider the appellant for pro forma promotion from the date his juniors were so promoted and in case he is already promoted or is going to be promoted he will retain his original seniority vis-a-vis the other promotees. With these observations we accept this appeal with no order as to costs.