' Syed Arshad Ali; Member.--Appellant above-named in the lis at hand assailed the seniority list of Assistant Superintendent Post Offices (ASPOs/AS MST) (BPS-14), Northern Sindh Circle Hyderabad, corrected upto 01.01:2011 issued vide # SC/G List of ASPO'siASMST/2009 dated 10.02.2011 wherein his name placed at Serial # 27 of the said list. Against such placement of his name, he submitted an application on 23.05.2011 requesting the respondent Concerned that his name be placed at a proper place i,e, at Serial # 8, after those seven persons who were promoted. His request was not considered and rejected vide letter dated 25.05.2012; hence, this appeal.
2.The factual position as per memo. Of Appeal is that the appellant was appointed as Clerk (BS-09) in Pakistan Post Office Department on 28.10.1990. The appellant after getting through the promotion examination for the post of ASPO/ASMST (BS-14); the appellant had undergone departmental training for 14 weeks at various post offices and branches besides training at Postal Training Centre, Karachi. Consequent upon completion of training, appellant was posted as ASPO Town Hyderabad vide order dated 22.04.2011.
3. A seniority list of ASPOs/ASMST (BS-14), Northern Circle Sindh, Hyderabad circulated upto 10.02.2011. The appellant as per memo. Of appeal, contended that his name appearing at Serial # 27 below those 19 ASPOs, who had qualified only initial recruitment examination. In addition 07 those ASPOs who had been promoted after qualifying the promotion examination/tests. The appellant filed .Representation before the Respondent # 1 praying that the seniority list as referred to above may be corrected and appellant's name may be placed at Serial # 8 after those 07 ASPOs, who were promoted by department earlier. The respondent issued a Letter No, SC/Staff- GList/ASPO-AS MST 'HSG/09 dated 25.05.2012 to the effect that appellant's matter was referred to the Principal PTC, Karachi and the Principal, (Postal Training Centre (PTC); Karachi vide Letter No KT/7-35/2-11-12 dated 14.05.2012 had informed that no such examination was conducted at PTC, Karachi of ASPOs, Batch 2003.
4. The Respondent # 1 submitted paradise comments and stated that Respondents # 2 to 5 were selected as per procedure given under Rule-670(1)(2)(3)(4)(5) of PO Manual, Volume-IV governed by Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1973. The Respondents # 2. To 5 successfully completed in the competitive examination of the syllabus given in annexure-B to Appendix # 18 of PO Manual Volume-IV. The written examination as per syllabus consist of two papers namely Paper-I English (Essay, Precise and Drafting), Paper-II Part A Pakistan Studies and Part B-Islamic Studies and a viva voce test carrying 100 marks was held by erstwhile Postmaster General Sindh, Karachi in 2003. The Respondents # 2 to 5 selected by initial recruitment for appointment as Probationary Assistant Superintendents of Post Offices completed 14 weeks departmental training in various offices and branches of the department including 6 weeks training at Postal Training Centre (PTC), Karachi. After completion of the prescribed departmental training, the Respondents # 2 to 5 successfully passed departmental examination in the first four papers of the syllabus given in annex Urea to Appendix # 18 of PO Manual Volume-VI at PTC Karachi and were declared successful. Hence; the Respondents # 2 to 5 were appointed and their seniority was fixed as per Rules-352, 353(1)(2)(3) governed by the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rifles, 1993. While the appellant entered into the service of Pakistan Post Office as Time Scale Clerk and on qualifying departmental examination for I he post of ASPO's (as per syllabus given in exurban-A to Appendix # 18 PO Manual Volume-IV), was declared successful and promoted to BPS-14 and posted as ASPO's (Town), Hyderabad on 22.04.2010. Hence, a combined gradation/seniority list prescribed under. Rule-355 of PO Manual. Volume-IV was circulated by the office of Respondent # 1 on 23.04.2011 wherein name of the appellant, as per seniority and entry in the cadre, was placed at Serial # 42 whereupon, appellant submitted an application dated 23.05.2011 raising objection for fixation his seniority at Serial # 8 in the light of instructions contained in Rule-670(5) of PO Manual- IV. The appellant in his appeal has misquoted the contents of Rule-670(5) PO Manual IV (as explained in preceding para). Infact, these papers were conducted from the Probationary ASPO's selected against direct quota at final stage' of the prescribed training by principal PTC Karachi for which the matter was referred to Principal PTC vide letter dated 02.05.2012. The appellant as well as Principal PTC, Karachi could not understand the contents of Rule-670(5) PO Manual Volume-IV. The appellant has also not called/made the Principal PTC, Karachi as respondent into his instant appeal to explain suitably before this Tribunal.
5. Private Respondents-2- to 4 also submitted their paradise comments wherein it was stated that in the seniority list circulated on 1.01.2011, name of the appellant was placed at Serial # 27, whereas, eir names were shown at Serial # 7, 8 & 10 respectively over and above the name of appellant. They were selected for promotion course laid down in Rules 601(1) to (5) of the Post Office Manual Volume-W and further detail comments have been offered by the official respondents against para-7. The seniority list circulated as on 01.01.2011 vide letter dated 10.02.2011 was provisional and not final and no appeal is competent against the provisional seniority as objections were called for against the said list from the aggrieved persons. They stated that appeal against the provisional seniority list circulated on 10.02.2011 on 23.05.2011 is hopelessly time barred. The representation if any against the said list circulated on 10.02.2011 were called for within seven days from the receipt of the seniority list and maximum time was available to the appellant to file representation against the said list dated 10.02.2011 upto 10.03.2011 which he failed to do within time. The basic rule is that, when the appeal or representation before the authority is time barred appeal before the Tribunal/Court is also time barred. They further stated that the appellant had filed the instant appeal being aggrieved by seniority list circulated on 10.02.2011 which was provisional and no appeal is competent against the provisional list whereas, factual position is that all private respondents were promoted in the present cadre on 04.01.2011, all private respondents are direct appointees, whereas, the appellant is promoted departmentally. The appellant had not filed any , appeal against the promotion and posting orders of private respondents on 23.04.2011, all the private respondents were appointed directly and if the appellant had any grievance against direct quota, he was at liberty to file appeal representation maximum upto 22.05.2003 as the appellant was in active service of the department, but he failed to do so; hence, appeal filed by the appellant against seniority list and promotion against the private, respondents are without any substance.
6. In the seniority list issued vide # SC/G.List of ASPO's/ASMST/2009 dated 10.2.2011; the appellant is standing @ Serial # 27 and in the seniority list circulated on 23.04.2011 the appellant is standing .@ Serial # 42. Notwithstanding the above two lists were still not final, the appellant as per his memo.
Of appeal assailed the seniority list # 1 issued vide dated 10.02.2011 before the departmental authority on 25.05.2011. The departmental appeal thus filed in terms of Action-4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 was time barred which had to be filed within a period of thirty days. It is settled principle that when the appeal before the departmental authority is time barred, appeal before the Tribunal is not competent. The Respondents # 2 to 5 selected by initial recruitment for appointment as Probationary Assistant Superintendents of Post Offices completed 14 weeks departmental training in various offices and branches of the department including 6 weeks training at Postal Training Center (PTC), Karachi. After completion of the prescribed departmental training, the Respondents # 2 to 5 successfully passed departmental examination in the first four papers of the syllabus given in annex Urea to Appendix # 18 of PO Manual Volume-VI at PTC Karachi and were declared successful. Hence, the Respondents # 2 to 5 were appointed and their seniority was fixed as per Rules-352, 353(1)(2)(3) governed by the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993. The respondents @ 2 to 5 were promoted on 23.04.2003. While the appellant entered into the service of Pakistan Post Office as Time Scale Clerk and on qualifying departmental examination for the post of ASPO's (as per syllabus given in annexure-A to Appendix # 1.8 PO Manual Volume-IV), was declared successful and promoted to BPS-14 and posted as ASPO's (Town), Hyderabad on 22.04.2010. The appellant should have made representation against the seniority of Respondents # 2 to .5 in the year 2003. Hence, a combined gradation/ seniority list prescribed under Rule-355 of PO Manual Volume-IV was circulated by the office of Respondent # 1 on 10.2.2011 wherein name of the appellant, as per seniority and entry in the cadre, was placed at Serial # 27 whereupon, appellant submitted an application dated 23.05.2011 raising objection for fixation his seniority at Serial # 8 in the light of instructions contained in Rule-670(5) of PO Manual-IV is not tenable.
7. In view of the position discussed as above, we are of the considered view that appeal merits no consideration and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to, costs.
8. Parties be informed accordingly.