ABEEDULLAH JAN (MEMBER).-This is an appeal against the orders of respondent No. 1 (Member, Board of Revenue) whereby the appellant's claim for regular promotion as Tehsildar with effect from 8-4-1970 was rejected.
2. The appellant was promoted as Tehsildar with effect from 8-4-1970 on temporary and ad hoc basis. The ad hoc promotion was later on regularised by the Board of Revenue with effect from 3- 6-1972 vide office order No. 40098/Admn-1/74-IV dated 25-10-1980. The appellant preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on 16-4-1980 for claiming regular appointment as Tehsildar with effect from 8-4-1970.
3. The dates mentioned in pre-para have led to an interesting revelation. The cause of action arose on 25-10-1980 where as the appellant had preferred the present appeal in the Tribunal on 16-4- 1980.
4. Prior to the regularisation of ad hoc promotion, the appellant submitted a representation to respondent No. ' (Senior Member, Board of Revenue) on 20-11-1979, in which he prayed that the illegality of ad hoc promotion may be rectified and his promotion as Tehsildar may be regularised with retrospective effect.
5. The appellant was informed by the Secretary, Board of Revenue vide letter dated 13-3-1980 that the request for regularisation of his services as Tehsildar with retrospective effect was not tenable because (i) the appellant (alongwith other N. Ts.) was promoted as Tehsildars purely on temporary and ad hoc basis. (ii) The Services Tribunal in their decision dated 19-5-1976 (Messrs Muhammad Akbar etc. v. Board of Revenue) have maintained that Tehsildars who were not appointed regularly are not to be considered as members of the service and as such they have no claim of seniority in the cadre of Tehsildars.
6. The appellant contends that his representation dated 20-11-1979 and the Board of Revenue's reply, dated 13-3-1980 have given him a definite cause of action and, therefore, his appeal is rightly and properly timed. We do not agree to his contention of the appellant, but if for academic reasons, the dummy cause of action is considered as real even then the present appeal would suffer from procedural inadequacies. Under section 4 (i) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1974, read with section 22 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, it is necessary for the aggrieved persons to first exhaust all departmental remedies available to them under the rules before preferring appeal in the Service Tribunal. The request made by the appellant as contained in his application dated 20-11-1979 (which was without any cause of recent happening) was turned down by the Board of Revenue. 1f the appellant had felt aggrieved and there was any provision in the relevant rules for an appeal or review, he ought to have preferred an appeal or review to the concerned authority. If there was no such provision, he should have, in view of provision contained in section 22 (2) of Civil Servants Act, made a representation to the next higher authority. He, however, did not do so. We, therefore, hold that the appeal, in view of section 4 (i) of the Service- Tribunals Act, is not competent.
7. At the time of proceedings on 7-9-1981, the appellant conceded that Government have issued a Notification on 25th of October, 1980 through which he has been granted seniority with retrospective date. The appellant, therefore, wanted to amend his appeal, because according to him, certain other grievances still exist. The request of the appellant was allowed on the condition that he would submit a written application spelling out the nature and extent of the remaining grievances. The appellant was given one month time for this purpose.
8. On 18-10-1981, the appellant did not appear but his letter address--ed to Registrar of the Tribunal was put up to us. The letter reads that : - "My service appeal is fixed for today. I have been assigned duty in connection with the Federal Cabinet's meeting in Governor's House, Peshawar, today. So, with due respect I beg to request that my appeal fixed for today may kindly be adjourned."
9. The request was again accepted and the case was adjourned to 27-10-1981. On that date, the appellant again requested for further time. This time, the request was turned down for the reasons that (i) the appellant came to this Tribunal without real cause of action. (ii) The mandatory requirements of section 4 (i) of the Service Tribunals Act, B 1974 read with section 22 of the Civil Servants Act, 1975 were not observed. (i.e) After issuance of Government Notification dated 25-10- 1980, the appeal is not entertainable in ins present form. (iv) Sufficient time was given to the appellant for amending his appeal in view of changed circumstances, but he did not avail of this opportunity due to utter lack of interest.
10. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs for the reasons given above.