' M. SALEEM CHUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).- By this appeal the appellant impugns the seniority assigned to respondents Nos. 2 to 7 by the respondent No. 1, under the West Pakistan Technical Education Department (Gazetted Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1966 (Annexure 'A' to this appeal).
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Respondent No. 1 made appointments of six persons which included respondents Nos. 2 to 7 and the appellant on 1st May. 1968 to the posts of Principals, Polytechnic Institutes, on the recommendations of the West Pakistan, Public Service Commission.
Since respondent No, 2 was already working as Principal, Polytechnic Institute (in the same Department), his appointment was given effect from 13th March, 1968 vide Notification dated 1st May, 1968 (Annexure 'A' to this appeal). The appellant joined on 1st June, 1968. The respondents Nos.
3, 4, 5 and 6 were also promoted on 27th July, 1968 against the vacancies reserved for departmental promotees.
3. However, subsequently on 21st February, 1970, the respondent No. 1 assigned dates of appointments/promotions to the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 on the dates falling between 1964 and January, 1968. The appellant however claimed seniority over Respondent No, 2.
4. In the above background, the Seniority List issued on 30th April, 1971 showed the appellant junior to respondents Nos. 2 to 7. The same position was reiterated in another Seniority List issued on 1st July, 1975. The appellant claims to have filed a representation against the same which was finally rejected on 6th May, 1978. The appellant stated that he actually received the Government reply rejecting his representation on 13th May, 1978 and he filed this appeal before this Tribunal on 7th June, 1978.
5. The department resisted this appeal so far as respondents Nos. 2 to 6 are concerned, on the ground that the order dated 21st February, 1970 assigning an earlier date of appointment to the respondents concerned was by an independent order which was never represented against by the appellant, or in any case the appeal against the same was grossly barred by time. According to the Government Pleader, unless the aforesaid order was set aside, the appellant was not entitled to assail the Seniority List in question which merely reflected the seniority position on the basis of earlier date of appointment allowed to the respondents concerned. With regard to Respondent No, 7, he submitted that the appellant and respondent No, 7 were selected by the West Pakistan, Public Service Commission in the same selection against a vacancy meant for direct recruitment and since order of merit of respondent No, 7 was higher, therefore, he was entitled to rank senior over the appellant.
6, The appellant, on the other hand, contended that he has been making representation even against the order assigning earlier date of appointment to the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 by the Government and as such he was entitled to question the seniority position and the earlier date of appointment assigned to the respondents Nos. 2 to 6.
7. We have gone through the record. It seems that the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 successfully took up the case for their appointments from earlier dates and got the same. We are unable to find any serious fault with the orders of Government assigning earlier date to the aforesaid respondents. In face of the aforesaid orders, we cannot see as to how the appellant was entitled to assert his seniority over the respondents Nos. 2 to 6. The appellant also failed to controvert the claim of the Department that respondent No, 7 and the appellant were selected by the West Pakistan, Public Service Commission against the vacancies meant for direct recruitment and the order of merit assigned to respondent No, 7 was higher than the appellant. Thus the appellant also cannot be allowed to assail the seniority assigned to the respondent No, 7.
8. Consequently, the appeal has no merit and is dismissed accordingly.