' M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- The petitioner disputes the seniority as Section Officer of respondent Muhammad Riaz determined by the Federal Service Tribunal by its impugned judgment dated 15- 8-1983. The petitioner had appeared at the first Promotional examination 1967 held under the Central Secretariat Service (Class I) Rules, 1965, for appointment against 18 posts of Section Officers. The first 18 persons in order of merit who had qualified at the examination were appointed on a temporary basis on 27-12-1968. 89 others (including the petitioner) who had passed the Examination but could not come within the quota, were subsequently appointed as Section Officers on an ad hoc basis.
2. In the second Promotional Examination held in 1969, 50 persons qualified against 24 vacancies.
Muhammad Riaz respondent, who secured the 19th position in order of merit in this examination, was among the 24 appointed on a temporary basis on 4-5-1971. The rest 26 were appointed on purely ad hoc basis without entitling them to any vested right on the posts of Section Officers. The respondent was encoder in the Central Secretariat Service (Class I) with effect from 9-10-1972 by notification dated 20-8-1973 and although he was shown at serial No,82 but in terms of the notification, the same did not represent the order of seniority of the officers. In the seniority list issued on 6-5-1974 he was placed at No,440, that is, junior to the ad hoc promotees of 1967 Promotional Examination. On his representation, he was placed, in the seniority list issued on 13-2- 1975, at serial No,380, that is, above the ad hoc promotees of the said Examination. But the position was soon changed in the seniority list of 26-12-1975, wherein he was not only once again placed junior to the aforesaid ad hoc promotees but also to the direct recruits of 1971, 1972 and 1973 which was against rule 13(4) of the C.S.S. (Class I) Rules, 1965. After having failed before the Department, he ultimately filed appeal before the Tribunal which was accepted by the impugned judgment and it was ordered that Muhammad Riaz respondent shall be treated as a regular Section Officer since 5-5-1971 and given his place in the seniority list accordingly and that he shall also rank senior to the direct recruits of the year 1971.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Tribunal had fallen in error in assuming that the respondent had been appointed on a regular basis under notification dated 4-5-1971, that even though he had been absorbed in the C.S.S. (Class I) Cadre by notification dated 20-8-1973, but the notification had made it clear that the arrangement of the names did not represent the order of seniority of the officers and that the appointment in the cadre would not give any one any right to seniority which was left to be determined in due course. No doubt, the relevant notifications support the submission. But as regards the rules, which ultimately determine the seniority, learned counsel referred to the Rules relating to the Office Management Group issued under O.M.No. 1/2/75- A.R.C., dated 27-1-1975 (at page 747 onward in ESTACODE 1983 Edition). In particular he referred to rule 4(iv) of the said Rules.
4. Rule 4 deals with the initial composition of the Office Management Group in respect of posts in Grade 17 and above. These include five categories of Officers, namely,
(i) Section Officers who already stood encadred in the former C.S.S. Cadre through notifications issued from time to time.
(ii) Section Officers who were eligible to be encadred but notifications could not be issued before the abolition of the C.S.S. Cadre.
(iii) Section Officers directly recruited by F.P.S.C. Till the end of 1974.
(iv) Ad hoc Section Officers who qualified in the Promotional Examinations of 1967 and 1969 but who could not be adjusted on regular basis due to non-availability of posts in the departmental quota.
(v) Ad hoc Section Officers who appeared in the Promotional Examinations of 1967 and 1969 and were cleared by revising the standard in consultation with the F.P.S.C.
Seniority has been dealt with in rule 12 which, as amended by O.M. No,1/2/75-ARC., dated 13-11-1976 and No,10/1/74-C III(A), dated 17-2-1979, reads: "12. Seniority.- (a)
(b) Section Officers in Grade 17 & 18:
(i) There shall be one combined seniority list of Section Officers in Grades 17 and 18 irrespective of the Ministry or Division or Office where they may for the time being be serving. The seniority of the promoted Section Officers appointed on regular basis in various phases upto and including Promotional Examination held in 1969, and of the Section Officers appointed by direct recruitment upto and including XIVth batch, has already been determined and notified vide Establishment Division's O.M. No, 8/1/74-C. III(A), dated the 26th December, 1975.
(ii) The seniority of Section Officers other than those mentioned in (i) above shall be determined on the basis of date of regular continuous officiating as Section Officers provided that the Promotee Officers of a particular year shall, as a class, be senior to the direct recruits of that year. Their inter se seniority, however, shall be determined in the case of direct recruits according to the order of merit assigned to them on completion of their training at the Academy for Administrative Training and, in the case of promoted officers, according to their order of merit as determined in the Promotion Examination.
(iii) Section Officers to be appointed in future on regular basis whether by promotion or by direct recruitment.-- The promotee officers of particular year shall, as a class, be senior to the direct recruits of that year. Their inter se seniority, however, shall be determined in the ease of direct recruits according to the order of merit assigned to them on completion of their training at the Academy for Administrative Training and, in the case of promoted officers, according to their order of merit as determined in the Promotional Examination."
5. It is contended that after the initial composition of the Group, the petitioner was appointed on a regular basis under rule 4(iv) and as such his seniority was governed by rule 12(b)(i) as he was to be treated to be a promoted Section Officer appointed on a regular basis. The contention, we are afraid, is not tenable. Rule 4 speaks of as many as five categories. The case of Muhammad Riaz respondent fell in the category "(i)". That is, Section Officers who already stood encadred in the former C.S.S. Cadre by virtue of notification of 20-8-1973, whereas the petitioner came under category "(iv)", that is, ad hoc Section Officers who had qualified in the Promotional Examination of 1967 but could not be adjusted on regular basis due to non-availability of posts in the departmental qouta. For the purpose of seniority, the petitioner does not come under rule 12(b)(i) because that sub-clause relates to seniority of only two categories, i,e,, (i) promoted Section Officers appointed on regular basis in various phases upto and including Promotional Examination held in 1969 and (ii) Section Officers appointed by direct recruitment upto and including XIVth batch. The petitioner had not been appointed on regular basis before the operation of rule 4(iv) and as such his case is governed not by sub-clause (i) but by sub-clause (ii) of rule 12(b) which deals with seniority of Section Officers "other than those mentioned in (i) above". The petitioner can claim his seniority only in terms of sub-clause (ii) of rule 12(b).
6. No case is, therefore, made out for interference with the order of the Tribunal. This petition is dismissed.