ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, C. J.-The petitioners are employed in the Education Department of the Government of Sind. After the integration of the privately managed schools and colleges with the Government institu--tions, as inter .Se seniority list was prepared. Such seniority list has not been produced before us, but the learned Advocate has produced a letter from the Directorate of School Education, Karachi dated 22-6-1980, which states that decisions have been taken by the Government to integrate the staff in the Government cadre and nationalised schools cadre, and the same letter further states that a list had been prepared, which was "It is, therefore, desired that every teacher (H. S T) should go through the list carefully and note down his rank in the seniority list and should verify the same with his service record and other documents. Variation discrepancy or omission if any should be brought to the notice of the undersigned in writing through the respective Heads and duly countersigned by the D.E.O. Concerned on the given pro forma at an early date but not later than 31st August, 1980. "
2 It seems the petitioners claimed promotion to posts in Grade 17, and having failed to obtain such promotion, they have filed the present petition, claiming the following relief :- "24. The petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to issue or cause to be issued final Seniority List of School Teachers, Gradewise, in the service of respondent No. 3's Education Department, in accordance with rules 9 and 10 of the Sind Civil Servants (Pro--bation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975 and section 8 of the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973, thus determining the petitioners' Final Seniority Position in the Grade of High School Teachers/ Grade-16, vis-a-vis all schools teachers in the said Grade, irrespective of their being in Government Service prior to promulgation of M. L. R. 118 or their induction in Government service pursuant to the provisions of the said Martial Law Regulation, and award--ing costs of this petition to the petitioners. "
3. We initially asked Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan, as to whether we had jurisdiction to entertain this case, because prima facie it appears to be a case, concerning the terms and conditions of Government servants. The learned Advocate has, however, contended that his sole l.4 grievance is in regard to non-compliance by the Government of public duties, which required them to produce a seniority list every year. His contention is that such grievance could not be agitated before the Service Tribunal, and therefore the jurisdiction of this Court is available. For the purposes of disposing of this petition, we are not inclined to enter into that question, because this petition could be disposed of on other grounds. Section 8 of the Sind Civil Servants Act of 1973 provides for the preparation of a seniority list members in particular service. Sub--section (1) of the said section reads as follows :- "Seniority.-(1) For proper administration of a service, cadre or grade, the appointing authority shall cause a seniority list of the members for the time being of such service, cadre or grade to be prepared, but nothing herein contained shall be construed to confer any vested right to a particular seniority in such service, cadre or grade, as the case may be. "
"9. (1) In each grade in a department there shall be separate seniority list of a group of civil servants doing similar duties and performing similar functions and for whose appointment same qualifications and experience have been laid down.
(2) The appointing authority shall, in the month of January every year, cause to be prepared, or, as the case may be, revised, the seniority list under sub-rule (1)."
5. Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan has, on the basis of rule, 9, contended before us that the Government of Sind had failed to prepare a fresh seniority list as is required by sub-rule (2). This sub-rule would seem to indicate that the appointing authority has, in the month of January every year, to prepare, or, cause to be prepared a seniority list as required by sub-rule (1) of rule 9. Although there is nothing before us to indicate, whether a fresh seniority list is being prepared every year, we have thought it fit to examine the language of this rule to determine, whether the rule is mandatory, or, directory, and the further question, whether, in absence of a new list, the old list would not be considered to be the final list existing. In our view, the language of rule 9 (2) of the said Rules would clearly indicate that the rule is not mandatory, but directory. Although the word "shall" has been used in the sub-rule, instances are not unknown when the words "shall" and "may" have been used in an interchangeable and variable sense We put before Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan a situation arising in a particular case, when as between one year and the next year, there was no change whatsoever in the personnel of a particular Department, and the question that we asked Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan was, whether a fresh list would still be necessary or, it a fresh list was prepared, would the old list exhaust itself, so as to become ineffective. The learned counsel repeated the argument in the circle that, since sub-rule (2) of rule 9 required a list to be prepared every year, the failure to prepare that list amounted to non-compliance with public duties. Even if we were to agree with him still the question is in regard to the effect that the non-preparation of a new list will produce. On the other hand, the concept of provisional, or, tentative seniority list, as is being urged by Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan, is something in variation to the language of section 8 of the Civil Servants Act, or, rule 9 of the Civil Servants Rules. Even the letter, dated 22-6-1980, stated that, although the list prepared was tentative, it was liable to variation, or, modification only if an aggrieved person made a motion in that behalf. On a consideration of all these matters, we are of the view that a list pre--pared by the Government would be termed to be final, unless a person, who is aggrieved by such list, makes a motion for variation, or, modi--fication, and such variation, or modification is made. On the other hand, we are also of the view that, merely for the fact of the new list not having been prepared, the old list does not lose its authenticity, or, validity. Suffice to say that, in the instant case, there is a list, which is occupying the field, and the mere fact of new list not having been prepared does not alter the authenticity, or, validity of the list prepared in June, 1980.
6. The next question that arises is whether the petitioners have made a grievance in regard to variation of the list. Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan has appended copies of two applications by the two petitioners, bearing Annexures, `H' and `I'. We asked Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan if any of these two applications made any grievance in regard to the seniority list, or, described the seniority list as incorrect. The learned Advocate had to admit before us that none of these applications makes a grievance in regard to the seniority list, although, in one of the two applications, a grievance has been made that the applicants were entitled to promotion to Grade 17. If that is so, then a relief of the nature, directing the Government to appoint the petitioners to a higher grade: cannot be granted by us in these proceedings. In fact, Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan did not even press for relief on that score.
7. Lastly, Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan relied on the judgment in the case of S. H. M. Rizvi and 5 others v.
Maqsood Ahmad and S others (PLD1981SC612). Reliance was placed on paragraph 13 of the judgment. In paragraph 13, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court have only observed that, since the departmental authorities had procrastinated, or, contumaciously refused to pass a final order, therefore constitutional petition lay. In the instant case, as observed earlier, no grievance has been made by the petitioners in regard to the seniority list being corrected and therefore the question of procrastination does not arise. This Supreme Court judgment has no application.
8. We see no substance in this petition, and we, therefore, dismiss the same in limine.