1. S. A. MAHMOOD (CHAIRMAN),-By this appeal under section 4(1) of the West Pakistan Civil Services (Appellate Tribunals) Ordinance, 1969, Mohammad Jahangir, appellant, prays that he be ordered to be promoted as Kanungo Girdawar and placed senior to Messrs Mohammad Ramzan, Abdul Latif, Abdul Aziz, Mohammad Rafique, Mohammad Aslam, Rana Abdul Majid, Khadim Hussain, Mohammad Saghir Ashraf Ghulam Rasool and Mahmood Bakhash, Kanungos and Abdul Hamid Patwari, respondents Nos. 3 to 13 in the list of seniority with retrospective effect and for all future purposes. In the amended appeal, which the appellant filed before the Tribunal, the prayer remained the same. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant has been appointed as Kanungo with effect from 15-9-70, and Abdul Hameed, respondent No. 13 has also been promoted as Kanungo from 26-1-70, so that at the time of the institution of the, appeal and the amended appeal, the latter was a Kanungo.
2. Mohammad Jahangir appellant is present along with Mr. Qurban Sadiq, Advocate.
3. TheCommissioner, Bahawalpur Division and the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar District, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are represented before us by Mr. A. G. Hamayyun, Government Pleader.
4. Respondents Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 12 and 13 are present in person. Respondent No. 3 is represented by Mr. Abdus Sattar Janam, Advocate. Respondent No. 1 is represented by Mr. Saad Subhani, Advocate.
5. Respondents Nos. 5 and 13 are represented by Mr. M. Asadullah Siddiqui, Advocate, respondents Nos. 6, 7, 8, 11 and 12 are represented by Mr. Mohammad Aslam Chatha, Advocate. The other respondents are absent in spite of service.
6. The appellant complains in this appeal that though he was selected as an approved Kanungo candidate earlier and was by reason of his seniority senior and entitled to earlier appoint--ment, he had td appeal to the Commissioner to be appointed as Kanungo. He accepted iris appeal and directed his appointment as Kanungo in the first available vacancy. The appellant claims an earlier right of promotion to the rank of Kanungo and further that he should be given higher seniority in the combined seniority list of Kanungos.
7. The service particulars of the appellant and the respondents may now be stated. The appellant was selected as 'A' Class direct recruit and his name was placed on the register of, approved Kanungo candidates on 4-9-55. In the list of . . . . . approved Kauungo candidates prepared on 12- 8-69, he has been placed at No. 40. He passed his departmental examination jog 71.1-56. Ha could not be appointed as Kanungo until 15-9-70 after be instituted this appeal. Meanwhile, he was appointed as Patwari on 23-9-57.
8. The other direct recruits are Mohammad Ramzan, Abdul Latif, Khadim Hussain and Mohammad Saghir Ashraf. Their names were placed on the list of approved kanungo candidates on 18-10-55, 27-11-54, 14-10-56 and 28-10-57, respectively. Thus abdul Latif respondent No. 4 was selected in an earlier selection than the appellant. Their dates of appointment as Kanungo are 6-12-68, 24-4-67, 1-12-69 and 4-7-70 respectively. It max be mentioned here that Khadim Hussain and Mohammed Saghrr Aahraf, respondents Nos. 9 and 10 have both been appointed against ex-cadre posts in the Consolidation Depart--ment as distinct from posts in the Revenue Department.
9. The remaining respondents were all selected as approved Kanungo candidates and enlisted on 21- 3-59, 11-12-56, 8-7-59 8-7-59, 21-8-67, 16-9-67 and 9-7 -59 respectively. They were promoted as Kanungos w. e. f. 23-11-66, 26-11-66, 1-12-67, 11-4-67, 26-1-70, 11-3-70 and 26-1-70, respectively.
10. Rule 9 of the West Pakistan Kanungo Service (Northern Zone) Rules, 1964 provides for the determination of seniority of the direct recruits as well as promotees and their inter se seniority.
11. This rule provides as under:- "9. Seniority.-(I) The seniority inter se of the members of the service in the various grades thereof shall be determined-
(a) in the case of members appointed by initial recruitment, in accordance with the order of merit assigned, by the appointing authority; provided that persons selected for the Service in an earlier selection shall rank senior to the persons selected in a later selection; and
(b) in the case of members appointed otherwise, with reference to the date of their continuous appointment therein; provided that if the date of continuous appointment in the case of two or more members of the Service is the same, the older official, if not Junior to the younger official or officials in the next below grade shall rank senior to the younger official or officials.
12. Explanation I-If a junior official in a lower grade is promoted to a higher grade temporarily, in the public interest, even though continuing later permanently in the higher grade, it would not adversely affect the interest of his seniors in the fixation of his seniority in the higher grade.
13. Explanation. II-If a junior official in lower grade is pro--moted so a higher grade by superseding a senior official and subsequently that official promote, the official promoted first shall rank senior to the official promoted subsequently.
14. Explanation III-A junior official appointed to a higher grade shall be deemed to have superseded a senior official only if both the junior and the senior officials were considered for the higher grade and the junior official was appointed in preference to the senior official.
(2) The seniority in the various grades of the service of the members appointed by initial recruitment via-a-via those appointed otherwise shall be determined-
(a) in case both the official appointed by initial recruitment and the official appointed otherwise have been appointed against substantive vacancies for both have been appointed against temporary vacancies, with reference to the date of appointment to such vacancy, in the case of the official appointed by initial recruitment and to the date of continuous appointment against such vacancy in the case of the official appointed otherwise; provided that if the two dates are the same, the official appointed otherwise; shall rank senior to the official appointed by initial recruitment;
(b) in case tile official appointed by initial recruitment has been appointed against a substantive vacancy and the official appointed otherwise has been appointed against a temporary vacancy the official appointed by initial recruitment shall rank senior to the official appointed otherwise; and
(c) ---in case the official appointed otherwise is appointed against a substantive vacancy and the Official appointed by initial recruitment is appointed against a temporary vacancy, the official appointed otherwise shall rank senior to the official appointment by initial recruitment.--- In the case of direct recruits, their inter se seniority is to be determined by their date of selection as provided in rule 9(1)(a). On this basis, Abdul Latif, respondent No. 4 having been selected and approved as Kanungo candidate earlier is entitled to rank senior to the appellant. The other directly selected Kanungo candidates are junior to the appellant, since they were selected in later selections than the appellant.
15. The inter se seniority of the promotees is governed by rule 9(1)(b).
16. Since the appellant was directly appointed as Kanungo, his inter se seniority with the promotees will be determined by sub-rule (2) of rule 9. Since appointment of the appellant and the promotee respondents were made to temporary vacancies, the particular clause of this sub-rule applicable is (a), and their inter se seniority has to be determined in the case of official appointed by initial recruitment by the data of appoint--ment to the vacancy and in the case of promotees, by the date of continuous appointment. On this basis, the appellant is junior to all the promotee respondents. The main grievance of the appellant, however, is that as be was senior on the list of Kanungo candidates, he should have beets promoted much earlier and by delaying his promotion his seniority has been affected. This is not, however, a matter which we can go into. The appellant has to seek his remedy elsewhere. His grievance on this score, if any, must be taken to administration for relief.
17. The appellant claims seniority over Abdul Latif on the ground of having passed the departmental examination earlier oil 1-1-56, as Abdul Latif passed the examination on 12-12-59. He thus claims to be senior to Abdul Latif, but this claim is not based on any rule. The date of passing the departmental examination and though appointed later he is entitled to count his seniority vis-a-vis the direct recruits from the date of selection.
18. The learned counsel for Mohammad Ramzan, respondent No. 3 has tried to contend that as direct recruits, the date of selection was not the determining factor of seniority, but that it is the date of appointment which governs seniority. We are unable to accept this contention in view of the plain meaning of rule 9(l)(a).
19. We would like to make it clear that the seniority list dated 12-8-69 is not the seniority list of Kanungos, but is a list of approved Kanungo candidates, whose names are entered in the order in which they were enlisted. This list cannot, therefore, to be confused with the seniority list of Kanungos. It may be used and can be relevant for making appointments of Kanungos but not for determining seniority of Kanungos except of direct recruits inter se. There are also on record seniority lists of direct Kanungo candidates 'A' Class and of depart--mental Kanungos, i.e. 'B' Class.
20. 'Therefore, separate lists in respect of 'A' Class Kanungo candidates and 'B' Class Kanungo candidates have been drawn up. No joint seniority list, as required by law, has so far been prepared. For the service there has to be a joint seniority list prepared hi accordance with the principles stated in rule 9 of the 1964-Rules. In accordance with the enunciation of this rule by us, we direct that a joint seniority list of Kanungos directly recruited and promoted should be drawn up in the district within three months.
21. We order as above, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.