RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J.---Both the supra-titled appeals arise out of the judgments of the Service Tribunal dated 25.1.2019 and 28.1.2019, whereby , the appeals filed by the appellants, herein, have been dismissed in limine. As common question of law and the facts is involved in these appeals, therefore, these have been heard together and being disposed of f through this proposed single judgment.
2. The common facts of the instant case are that the appellants, herein, filed two separate appeals before the Service Tribunal while challenging the notifications dated 6.9.2016 and 5.10.2018. Through Appeal No.56 of 2019, it was averred that that the appellants were promoted as the Assistant Commissioners (BPS-18) on officiating basis, vide notifications dated 8.7.2013 and 29.10.2013. It was further alleged that they were regularly promoted as the Assistant Commissioners (BPS-18) on 24.4.2015. It was also alleged that the respondent, Syed Mumtaz Hussain Kazmi, was appointed as Assistant Commissioner (BPS-17) vide notifica tion dated 9.1.2015. His name has been entered in the seniority list of the Assistant Commissioners, prepared on 9.6.2016, prior to the names of the appellants, despite being junior to them. The other Appeal No.64/2019 was filed by the appellant before the Service Tribunal on 28.1.2019, against the order dated 5.10.2018, whereby the case of the respondent was deferred for promotion against the post of BPS-19. The learned Service Tribuna l, after necessary proceedings, dismissed both the appeals in limine, hence these appeals, by leave.
3. Mr. Asghar Ali Malik, advocate, counsel for the appellants, in both the appeals, submitted that the impugned judgments have been delivered by the Service Tribunal without application of the judicial mind. He added that important legal proposition was involved in the matter , which has not been attended to by the learned Service Tribunal and the appeals have been dismissed on the ground of limitation without taking into consideration the merits of the case. The learned counsel forcefully argued that great injustice has been caused to the appellants while not placing their name at the proper place in the departmental seniority list and the respondent has been shown as senior to the appellants, which is not true aspect of the matter . According to the learned counsel, the terms and conditions of the service of the respondents have been badly affected by the conduct of the respondents but the learned Service Tribunal failed to take into account all these important aspects of the case while- handing down the impugned judgment. The learned counsel further stated that the notifications through which the appellants became aggrieved, were never communicated to them, in this way, the 'same were concealed just to extend benefit to the person of their own choice and to deprive the appellants of their valuable right.
4. On the other hand, Syed Asim Masood Gilani, Advocate, counsel for the private respondent, strongly supported the impugned judgments while submitting that the same are in accordance with law and not open for interference by this Court. The learned counsel added that there is nothing on the record to justify the challenging of the seniority list dated 6.9.2016 and the notification dated 5.10.2018, a long after expiry of the prescribed period of the limitation. The learned counsel added that the argument of the counsel for the appellants that the appellants were not aware of the notification, is against the record and contradictory in nature, as on the one hand, they drew the fruits of the notification dated 5.10.2018 in the form of promotion and at the same time, they are stating that they were not aware of the notification and such argument amounts to misleading the Court. The learned counsel submitted that even on merits, the stance taken by the appellants regarding seniority position is against the record, on the ground that the respondent was appointed as Assistant Commissioner (B-18) vide notification dated 9.1.2015 and the appellants were promoted against the departmental promotion quota vide notification dated 24.4.2015, hence, obviously the respondent is senior to the appellants. The learned counsel further submitted that even otherwise the officiating promotion of the appellants does not bestow any right to them to claim seniority or further promotion.
5. Raja Inaamullah Khan, the learned Advocate-General, supported the argumen t of the counsel for the private respondent and prayed for dismissal of appeals.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgments along with the record made available.
7. The appellants, herein, filed two separate appeals before the Service Tribunal; one on 24.1.2019, against the final seniority list dated 6.9.2016, through which the private respondent was shown as senior to the appellants and the other on 26.1.2019, against the notification dated 5.10.2018, through which the case of the private respondent was deferred for promotion against the post of BPS-19. Both the appeals have been dismissed in limine for being time-barred. The burning argument of the counsel for the appellants is that the seniority list dated 6.9.2016 and the notification dated 5.10.2018 were never communicated to the appellants and as soon as the same came into their knowledge, they applied for copies of the same, which were received on 14.11.2018 and after receiving the same, they approached the proper forum. The argument of the counsel for the appellants appears to be amazing and against the record. It was never the case of the appellants that the notification dated 5.10.2018 was not published in the official gazette and the same rema ined concealed. Once a notification is issued and published in the official gazette, it is presumed that the same is for the information of general public, therefore, this argument has no force, which is repelled. We are fortified in our view from the judgment of this Court reported as Tariq Javaid v. Azad Government and 5 others [2015 SCR A 653], wherein, it has been laid down that the publication of a notification in the official gazette is sufficient for information of the general public. Even the grounds taken in the appeal are self-contradictory , as at one hand it was submitted that the appellants were not aware of the notification under challenge and at the other hand, the appellants have stated that in pursuance of the said notification, they have been promoted, but their names have not been entered at the proper place and they were not aware of the same.
We do not accept such like conduct of the learned counsel for the appellants. By raising such argument, he deviated from his professional obligations and legal ethics, which is regrettable.
8. After making the analysis of the material brought on the record, we are in agree ment with the findings arrived at by the learned Service Tribunal that the appeals were filed after expiry of the period of limitation and explanation offered in this regard is not plausible. The appellants cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold in one breath, while enjoying the promotion affected through the notification dated 5.10.2018 and equa lly denying the awareness about the same. As we have observed in the preceding paragraph that it was not the case of the appellants that the notification was not published in the official gazette, meaning thereby that the notification was duly published and after its publication, it can safely be presumed that the same was in the knowledge of the public at large. The learned Service Tribunal has not committed any illegality or irregularity while dismissing the appeals through the impugned judgments and has rightly appreciated the material available on the record. The judgments are in accordance with law and the findings recorded by the learned Service Tribunal are based on correct appreciation of the record, which do not call for any interference by this Court.
The result of the above discussion is that finding no force in these appeals, the same are dismissed with no order as to costs.