1. MUSHTAK ALI KAZI (CHAIRMAN).-This is an appeal under section 4 of Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973 on the question of seniority of the appellant in the cadre of Civil Judges in the Province of Sind.
2. The appellant was selected as a Civil Judge by the Sind Public Service Commission in February, 1975 along with Mr. Sajjad Ali Shah and 11 others. The Sind Government did not choose to appoint the appellant, at that time though the Government appointed the remaining selectees from that batch, because on verification of the antecedent of the appellant an adverse report had been - received by the Government. Meanwhile respondents Nos. 3 to 43 were appointed as Civil Judges in batches subsequent to the selection of the appellant in the year 1975. The appellant made a representation, as a result of which his antecedents were got re-verified. As a consequence of this subsequent report, he was considered for appointment afresh as Civil Judge in the year 1978 and his order of appointment was issued on 6th August, 1978. He was thereafter posted as Civil Judge by the High Court.
3. The appellant after his appointment, made a representation through the High Court that his seniority be fixed under the provision of rule 11 of the Sind Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975 and he may be allowed seniority according to the order of merit assigned by the Sind Public Service Commission in the batch appointed in the year X975. The matter was forwarded to the Services and General Administration Department, who took the view that to allow seniority to the appellant on the basis of rule 11 will mean allowing him seniority from a date when he was not even in service. In the circumstances it had been decided in consultation with the Law Department and the Advocate-General, Sind to allow him seniority from the date of his actual appointment in 1978. This order was communicated to the appellant by the High Court under their letter dated 5th July, 1981. Against this order the appellant made a representation to M.L.A., exercising powers as Chief Minister. This representation of the appellant was also rejected. The appellant has accordingly preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
4. It has been argued by Mr. Naimafullah Qureshi on behalf of the appellant, that under rule 11 of the Seniority Rules, the seniority is to be assigned according to the order of merit fixed by the Public Service Com--mission for that batch and a person selected in earlier selection shall rank senior to a person selected in the later selection.
5. It may, however, be pointed out, that selection by the Public Service Commission does not confer any vested right on the selectee for actual appointment by the Government. The Public Service Commission is a recommendatory body and the powers of actual appointment continue to vast in the appointing authority, i.e. The Government. Ordinarily if a selectee of Public Service Commission is not taken up by the Government, the candidate ceases A to be eligible for appointment after lapse of six months as the whole list becomes out of date and lapses. In the present case on the representa--tion of the appellant the Government went out of the way to call for re-verification of his antecedents. Under rule 11 of the Seniority Rules the inter se seniority of Civil Servants appointed in a batch or on the same date is to be determined as provided in the subsequent paragraphs.
6. The conditions precedent for application of rule 11 are that the candidate would by "appointed" along with other candidates of the same batch or on the same date ; otherwise there would be no difficulty in determining seniority, as ordinarily it is determined according to the date of appoint-- ment under rule 10(1). In the case of the present appellant rule 10(1) would be applicable and not rule 11, because the appellant was not "appointed" on the same date with other persons selected in that batch.
7. The claim of the appellant regarding seniority is thus based on an erroneous reading of rule 11. His seniority will be determined according to the date of 'his regular appointment and the question of order of merit assigned by the Public Service Commission does not at all arise in his case.