1. ' MUSHTAL ALI KAZI (CHAIRMAN).-This is an application under sections 151, 152 and 153, C. P. C, for review of a judgment announced by the Tribunal on 7th July, 197v, in an appeal filed before it under section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act 1973, for determining the seniority of the appellant in the cadre of Mukhtiarkars.
2. ' The service appeal filed by the appellant on 17th January, 1977 was disposed of by judgment dated 7th July, 1979 dismissing the appeal on the ground that there was no vested right in seniority, since seniority was not included in the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, and the Tribunal has accordingly no jurisdiction .To interfere in such cases. The appellant after dismissal of the service appeal preferred a Constitutional Petition being Petition No, 729 of 1980 before the High Court, of Sind, Karachi. The High Court held that seniority is either a term of service or it is not. In the former case appeal lies before the Service Tribunal, but if it is not a term of service, the petitioner cannot maintain a petition for a writ of mandamus, for directing the respondents to show him at a particular place in the seniority list. The petition was accordingly' dismissed in limine by Division Bench Judgment dated 19th May, 1981. In Constitution Petition No, B-1333 of 1980 A. H. Mirza v. The Province of Sind, it was however observed, that an appeal relating to seniority under section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunal Act is maintainable before the Service Tribunal and the view expressed by the Sind Service Tribunal in a similar matter of Mst. Ume Kulsoom relating to dispute pertaining to seniority of a civil servant was "over ruled". The appellant has accordingly filed this application for review of the judgment pronounced by the Tribunal, with Mr. Justice (Rtd.) Ghulam Rasool Sheikh as Chairman and M/s. Abdul Kadir and G. A. Mughal as Members, about 3 years ago. The contention of Mr. Khalid Ishaq on behalf of the applicant is, that in view of the observations of the High Court of Sind, the decision of the Tribunal, that they had no jurisdiction in seniority matters, was wrong and the order was therefore a nullity in law. That since legal technicalities could not be allowed to stand in the way of justice, the Tribunal may correct its own error and re-write the judgment holding that the Tribunal has jurisdiction in such cases and to decide the matter afresh.
3. While section 151, C. P. C. Relates to inherent powers of the Court, section 152 deals with amendment of the judgment to correct clerical or arithmetical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission. It cannot be said that the view taken by the previous Tribunal was an accidental slip or omission. The intentional omission does no give power to correct the same under section 152, C. P. C. If the order as it stands represents the intention of the Judge at the time he made it then it cannot be treated as a mistake due to accidental slip or omission. The Tribunal had taken a certain view and dismissed the matter. Similar view was recently taken by the Supreme Court (1981 SCMR 554 that seniority was not included within the meaning of the words "terms and conditions of service" in respect of which an order could be made, and an appeal arising out of the order was incompetent for that reason. It is, therefore, not open to this Tribunal after lapse of 3 years to sit in judgment over the view held by the previous Tribunal and to re hear the same appeal and give a different judgment, merely because the High Court has dismissed a Constitutional Petition relating to seniority and observed that the Service Tribunal could deal with the matter. If the applicant feels aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, he can under the Constitution prefer a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. When this remedy is open to him, he cannot be heard to say that in view of the observations of the High Court, the Tribunal should change its previous decision.
4. This application for review is obviously not maintain able and is accordingly dismissed.