' Raja Saeed Akram Khan, J.--This appeal by leave of the Court has been directed against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 31.12.2013, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents, herein, has been accepted.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that vide Notification dated 23.10.2012, four Private Secretaries and four Superintendents of the civil secretariat were regularly promoted as Section Officers, B-17. The respondents challenged the said notification before the Service Tribunal only to the extent of promotion from the Superintendent cadre and it was averred in the appeal that the same is without lawful authority, contrary to the departmental Rules and in violation to the judgment of the apex Court. Although, the notification has been challenged only to the extent of the promotees from Superintendent cadre, however, the learned Service Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment set aside the Notification as a whole on the ground that the direction issued by the apex Court that the department shall be determine the inter se seniority of the incumbents at the time of regular promotion in a case titled Muhammad Hanif Shah and others v. Muhammad Yaqoob Janjua & others, has not been complied with. Hence, this appeal by leave of the Court.
3. Sardar Habib Zi-a, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that the judgment of the Service Tribunal is against law and the facts of the case which is not sustainable in the eye of law. He submitted that the judgment impugned is based on misinterpretation of relevant provisions of law. He contended that while issuing the direction for preparation of fresh seniority list the learned Service Tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction. He added that the Service Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment has misconstrued the direction issued by this Court in the judgment delivered in the case titled Muhammad Hanif Shah & others v. Muhammad Yaqoob Janjua & others. He added that the Service Tribunal has failed to adhere to the fact that the appellants were promoted according to the ratio of their strength, while keeping in view the judgment of the apex Court and the relevant Rules. Moreover, no right of the respondents has been infringed as quota has been determined according to the ratio of respective strength. He forcefully argued that even otherwise a new situation has been emerged as the respondents have also been promoted on regular basis vide Notification dated 21.05.2015. In this regard, he placed on record the copy of promotion order of the respondents. He submitted that after the issuance of the promotion order of the respondents, a new seniority list shall also be prepared and if the respondents would have any grievance they may challenge the same before the competent forum. He lastly argued that the learned Service Tribunal has also acted beyond its jurisdiction while setting aside the Notification to the extent of the promotees who were not party before the Service Tribunal as it is celebrated principle of law that no adverse order can be passed against a person who is not a party in the proceedings.
4. On the other hand, Meer Sharafat Hussain, Advocate, while appearing on behalf of Respondents No, 1 to 6 strongly controverted the arguments" advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. He submitted that the respondents are aggrieved by the promotion order of the appellants as the same has been issued while violating the judgment of this Court as well as the relevant Rules. In this way, the judgment of the Service Tribunal is perfect and legal which does not warrant any interference by this Court. He submitted that inter se seniority has not been determined while issuing the promotion order of the appellants, therefore, the direction has rightly been issued by the Service Tribunal. When he was confronted with the position that after respondents' promotion a new situation has emerged, he still pressed the argument that the question of inter-se-seniority has not been decided by the authority in accordance with law.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record along with the impugned judgment. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Service Tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction while setting aside the promotion order dated 23.10.2012 to the extent of the promotees who were not party before the Service Tribunal, i.e,, Muhammad Najeeb Khan, Muhammad Manzoor Awan, Raja Muhammad Arif, Mumtaz Ahmed and Muhammad Sarfraz, is convincing in nature as no adverse order can be passed against a person who is not a party in the proceedings before any Court or Tribunal. The hearing based on principle of audi alteram partem is a fundamental right of every person and no one can be deprived of such right. This Court in a case reported as Muhammad Khurshid & another v. Secretary Education Schools and 4 others [2011 SCR 175], while dealing with the proposition observed as under: "The hearing based on principle of audi alteram partem is a fundamental right of every person. No adverse order can be passed against a civil servant without providing him an opportunity of hearing. The Constitution guarantees fundamental rights but when any order has been passed in violation of the rules or it is void ,ab initio, such an order can be cancelled or taken away without issuing a notice or hearing."
' Similarly, in another case reported as Khalid Ahmed Aqeel v. Member Board of Revenue and 3 others [2002 SCR 128], this Court observed as under: ' The Selection Committee, therefore, was a necessary party and no order could be passed against the Selection Committee without providing it a right of hearing. The Selection Committee has played important role in the present case. Its recommendations were accepted by the competent authority while passing order of promotion of Respondent No,
4. The procedure contained in the Code of Civil procedure is applicable in the proceedings before the Service Tribunal therefore without impleading the necessary party, the appeal before the Service Tribunal was not maintainable."
' Although, we fully endorse the principle enunciated in the referred judgments, but in the instant case the persons against whom the adverse order has been passed by the Service Tribunal have not filed any appeal before this Court, therefore, we do not think appropriate to record any findings in this regard as it is also a celebrated principle of law that relief is granted to a party who Knocks the door of the Court. Reliance can be placed on a case reported as Azad Government and another v. Khurshid Ahmad and another [2001 SCR 145], wherein, it has been observed that: "16. Next, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the judgment of the High Court is ambiguous and does not show which of the land owners are entitled to receive the compensation amount enhanced by the High Court. It may be observed that the enhanced compensation awarded by the High Court is to be paid only to the land owners who were appellants in the appeal titled Muhammad Saleem and 23 other v. Azad Government and 2 others (Civil Appeal No, 55 of 1998). There is no question of enhancement of the compensation of those land owners who did not file any appeal against the findings of the District Judge before the High Court."
6. So far as, the question of violation of the judgment of this Court delivered in the case titled Muhammad Hanif Shah and others v. Muhammad Yaqoob Janjua and others (civil Appeal Nos.178 and 179 of 2009 decided on 11.01.2011) is concerned, we have also gone through the same. After perusing the judgment supra and going through the controversy involved in the case, we failed to find anything which has been done in deviation of the judgment supra. The spirit of the direction of this Court is that the seniority is liable to be determined after the regular promotion in the next higher grade, thus, how the seniority regarding the post of higher grade can be determined among the incumbents prior to their promotion against the relevant posts. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents and the findings recorded by the Service Tribunal in this regard are misconstrued.
7. The perusal of the prayer clause of appeal filed by the respondents, herein, before the Service Tribunal shows that they approached the Service Tribunal for setting aside the promotion order of the appellants and also for issuance of direction for their own promotion. Although, while accepting the appeal, the learned Service Tribunal has set aside the promotion order of the appellants, however, no direction has been issued to the department for promotion of the respondents. Now the respondents have already been promoted and the learned counsel for the appellants has produced before the Court the copy of promotion order of the respondents dated 21.05.2015, therefore, in this way, a new situation has emerged and it can be said that almost the grievance of the respondents has been redressed. Now the only objection raised by the respondents is that the inter-seseniority has not properly been determined. In our estimation, the apprehension shown by the respondents is premature as no seniority list of the promoted employees has been issued.
Moreover, it may also be observed here, that if the respondents feel that they are entitled for promotion retrospectively even then they can approach the proper forum for redressal of their grievance.
8. The learned Service Tribunal set aside the Notification dated 23.10.2012, mainly on the ground that the direction of the Supreme Court has not been complied with at the time of issuance of regular promotion orders of the appellants. As we have discussed earlier, that while issuing the promotion order of the appellants no deviation from the direction issued by this Court has been made, therefore, while accepting the appeal of the appellants, herein, the judgment of the Service Tribunal is set aside to their extent.
' The appeal stands accepted in the terms indicated hereinabove. No order as to the costs.
(R.A.) .