1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-The appellants herein, who were working in various departments of the erstwhile Civil Secre--tariat of the Government of West Pakistan appellants Nos. 1 to 8 as Section Officers and Nos. 9 to 10 as Superintendents filed a writ petition in the High Court (Lahore), under Article 98 of the abrogated Constitution of 1962, questioning the validity of the policy letter of the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of West Pakistan, dated the 16th of January 1968, and the orders passed in consequence thereof, whereby respondents Nos. 2 to 5, who had allegedly joined the Civil Service Secre--tariat against temporary vacancies, were given presumptive seniority as against the appellants by extending them to the benefit of their war services, under Punjab Government Service (War) Amendment Rules, 1943. The policy letter aforesaid directed that the posts, which fell vacant during the period from the 18th of September 1943, to the 1st of January 1946, should be treated as reserved vacancies for the purpose of giving the benefit of seniority of the war service candidates irrespective of the fact whether the vacancy was permanent or temporary. The main contentions, which were urged for the appellants in the High Court, and were repeated before us, are that the war service rules aforesaid did not contemplate the reservation of temporary vacancies for war service candidates, and the respondents being incumbents of temporary vacancies, were not entitled to the benefit of war service, which had wrongly been granted to them. It is also submitted that the operation of rule 3 of the aforesaid rules was terminated with effect from the 1st of January 1946, on the conclusion of the war, and the remaining rules were repealed retrospectively with effect from the same date (1st of January 1946), by the promulgation of the Punjab Government Service (War) Amendment Rules (West Pakistan Repeal Ordinance) XLI of 1963, on the 24th of January 1963, and, as such, the Government was not vested with any legal power to grant war service benefits to employees who had not already secured the same prior to the repeal of the rules and the lapse of the ordinance, which expired by efflux of time on the 25th of June 1963, as it was not laid before the Provincial Assembly for approval, as required by the Constitution. The contentions have been rejected by a Division Bench of the High Court, on the view that the war service rules do not make any distinction between permanent or temporary vacancies for the purpose of their reservation of accommodate war service candidates. It was also held by the High Court that the accrual of war service benefits was dependant upon the occurrence of vacancies during the stipulated period from the 18th of September 1943, to the 1st of January 1946, when the operation of rule 3 relating to reservation of posts was brought to an end. It was further held that the termination of rule 3 meant that from that date onwards there would no longer be any reservation of vacancies for war service candidates, but it did not affect the validity of the rules in regard to the fixation of the seniority.
2. We are of the opinion that the writ petition of the appel--lants should have been dismissed on the short ground of its incompetency, which is quite patent. As observed already, the appellants had sought to challenge the seniority of the respon--dents in the Civil Secretariat establishment vis-a- vis themselves, as fixed by the impugned orders, in consequence of the policy letter issued by the Government referred to above. It has been lately held by this Court in the case of Inspector- General of Police, West Pakistan, Lahore v. Muhammad Idrees Khan (PLD 1970 SC 279), in conformity with the view of this Court in Durrani's case (PLD 1966 SC 99) and in the case of Muhammad Akhtar Hussain v. Government of West Pakistan (PLD 1970 SC 146), that Article 98 of the Constitution confines the jurisdiction of the High Court, as regards the enforcement of conditions of service of public servants only to those terms and conditions, which are specified in the Constitution, and which are found scattered in various articles thereof. Article 178 in subsection
(2) requires that the terms and conditions of public servants shall be as prescribed by rules, except in the case of persons whose terms and conditions of service are specified in the Constitution itself.
3. Subsection (3) of the same article provides that once appointed, the terms and conditions of the service of a public servant are not to be varied to his disadvantage, in so far as they relates to remunera--tion or age fixed for superannuation.
4. The result is that the grievance of the appellants with regard to the disturbance of their seniority does not attract the constitutional remedy under Article 98 of the late Constitution, as it does not fall within the category of the cases for which such a remedy could be competently invoked. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed on that basis, and we refrain to express any view on the merits of the appellants' contentions. If the appellants consider, and they are so advised, that the war service rules have been misinterpreted or have been wrongly utilised in favour of the respondents, and that the benefit of war service has been illegally extended to them in the fixation of their seniority, the appellants may approach the Appeal Services Tribunals, which have been recently set up by the Provincial Governments concerned for this purpose.
5. It may, however, be stated for the sake of guidance that in the case of Muhammad Akhtar Hussain and 4 others v. Government of West Pakistan, this Court has explained the legal position as to the effect of the Punjab Government Service (War) Amendment Rules (West Pakistan Repeal)
6. Ordinance (XLI of 1963) on the war service benefits eligible to war service candidates under the 1943 Rules. It was pointed out in this case that section 2 of the repealing Ordinance was clearly intended to negative the decision of this Court in the case of Manzur Ahmad v. Province of West Pakistan (PLD 1961 SC 160) with retrospective effect from the 1st January 1946, from which date, according to that decision, the distinction between war-reserved vacancies and non-reserved vacancies had been removed. Section 2, however, contains two provisos, the first safeguarded all actions that had been taken under the 1943 Rules up to date of the promulgation of the Ordinance, viz. The 24th of January 1963, and the second laid down that the seniority of all those not covered by the first proviso was to be fixed in future in accordance with the provisions of section 3 thereof, which restricted the war service benefits only to those appointed to a war-reserved vacancy and not to those appointed to non-reserved vacancies. However, the policy letter of the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of West Pakistan dated the 16th of January 1968, impugned in the writ petition in the present case, declaring that the posts, which fell vacant during the period from the 8th of September 1943, to the 1st of January 1946, should be treated as reserved-vacancies for giving the benefit of seniority to the war service candidates, irrespective of the vacancy being permanent or temporary, had not come for consideration in that case.
7. In the result, we dismiss this appeal, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.