1. S. A. MAHMOOD (CHAIRMAN).-By this appeal under section 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Appellate Tribunal,., Ordinance, 1970, Raja Muhammad Didar Khan, Excise and Taxation Inspector, prays that he may be declared senior to res--pondents Nos. 2 to 6 in the rank of Excise and Taxation Inspector and that the Board of Revenue, respondent No. 1, may be:directed to show him senior to the respondents in the seniority list.
2. The appellant is represented by Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Masud, Advocate. Mr. Arshad Mahmood, Advocate is present along I with Sh. Abdul Majid, respondent No. 6. The remaining respondents Malik Maqbool Ahmad, Agha Muhammad jamil Ch. Riasat Ali and Ch. Farzand Ali, are absent. On behalf of the Board of Revenue, Mr. Muhammad Ashraf, Assistant, is present along with the relevant record.
3. The seniority in dispute in this case is in the rank of excise and Taxation Inspector. To the Excise Subordinate Service, the rules applicable were the Punjab Excise Subordinate Service Rules. 1952 and to the Taxation side applied the Punjab Taxation Subordinate Service Rules, 1954. By notification of 13-7-1964 the Excise and Taxation Services were both amalgamated in terms of Notification No. 934-64/1640-E (E & T), to the following effect :-- "The Governor of West Pakistan is pleased to order that both the cadres of Excise/ Taxation Inspectorate Staff should be amalgamated and made inter-changeable with effect front 1-12-62.
4. Their designations henceforth will be Excise and taxation Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors"
5. To the Service as now formed, the West Pakistan Excise and Taxation Department Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 were made applicable. Rule 9 of these Rules provided for seniority as follows:- "9. Seniaratyr-41) The seniority inter se of the members of the service in the various grades thereof shall be deter mined
(a) in the case of members appointed by initial recruitment, in accordance with the order of merit assigned by the Divisional Recruitment Selection Board or the appointing authority as the case may be 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 refer--ence to the dates of their continuous appointment therein; provide 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 of officials.
6. Explanation I.--If a junior official in h 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.
7. Explanation II.--If a junior official in a lower grade is promoted to a higher grade by superseding a senior official and subsequently that official is also promoted, the official promoted first shall rank senior to the official promoted subsequently- Explanation III.-A junior official appointed to a higher grade shall be deemed to have superseded a senior official only if both the junior tad the senior officials were considered for the, higher grade and the junior official was appointed in preference co the senior official.
8. (2)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- The appellant was appointed as Excise Sub-Inspector on 11-9-42 and was promoted as Officiating Excise and Tax Inspector 9-7-66. He was confirmed on 1-10-67. Malik Maqbool Ahmad, respondent No. 2 was appointed as Excise Sub-Inspector on 16-4-53 and was promoted as Excise and Taxation Inspector on 5-4-65. Sh. Abdul Majid, respondent No. 6 was appointed as excise Sub-Inspector on 26-2-51 and was promoted as Excise and taxation Inspector on 24-10-65. Mr. Muhammad Jamil, respon--dent No. 3 was appointed as Taxation Sub-Inspector on 7-6-44 and, 2.s promoted as Excise and Taxation Inspector on 21-5-65. Ch. Riasat Ali, respondent No. 4 was appointed as Taxation Sub-- inspector on 1-5-45 and was promoted as Excise and Taxation inspector on 21-5-
65. Ch. Farzand Ali, respondent No. 5 was, appointed as Taxation Sub-Inspector on 1-4-44 and was promoted Excise and Taxation Inspector on 19-10-65. According to dates of continuous appointment, respondents Nos. 2 to 6 were appointed earlier and have thus earlier dates of continuous appointment than the appellant. Therefore, under rule 9 they Rules they are entitled to rank senior to the appel--lant, but it has been contended on his behalf relying on Explanation III that as their cases were not considered in juxtaposition when promoting the respondents as Excise and Taxation Inspectors, the appellant does not lose his basic seniority which he had over the respondents in the rank of Excise Sub-Inspector. We have examined the relevant file of promotion of Malik Maqbool Ahmad and Sh. Abdul Majid, respondents Nos. 2 and 6 and find that their case for promotion under rule 7 (a) (ii) of 1952-Rules was considered along with the case of Raja Muhammad Didar Khan appellant and they were appointed a preference to the appellant and others who were considered for accelerated promotion. Therefore, Malik Maqbool Ahmad and Sh.
9. Abdul Majid have superseded the appellant in appointment as Excise and Taxation Inspector.
10. It has been conceded by Mr. Muhammad Ashraf, Assistant that though the Excise and Taxation Services were amalgamated by the 1964-Notification, the Excise Sub-Inspectors were only considered for promotion along with Excise Sub-Inspector as Excise and Taxation Inspectors and the same was the case with Taxation Sub-Inspectors. We are surprised that this system of separate promotion should have continued in view of the notifica--tion of 1964 and the rules of 1966. Promotions to the rank of Excise and Taxation Inspectors should have been made both from, the Excise Sub-Inspectors and Taxation Sub-Inspectors. These promotions are earlier than the promulgation of the rules, but nonetheless in view of the notification, Sub-Inspectors of both the Services should have been considered for promotion as excise and Taxation Inspectors. We find, however, from Mr. Muhammad Ashraf, Assistant, Board of Revenue, that the names of Agha Muhammad Jamil, Ch. Riasat Ali and Ch. Farzand Ali were not considered in juxtaposition with that of the appellant, and, therefore, it cannot be said that they have specifically superseded the appellant when promoted as Excise and Taxation Inspectors. We, therefore, direct that in preparing their merged seniority in the rank of Excise and Taxation Inspector, their service records may be examined in comparison so as to determine who shall rank senior to the other in terms of rule 9 read with the Explanation. For the purposes of declaration of seniority, it may be considered whether the presumptive dates of continuous officiation are not to be assigned to them in order to ensure their seniority under the rules in accordance with their service record.
11. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal against Malik Maqbool Ahmad and Sh. Abdul Majid and make the order as above in respect off respondents Nos. 3 to 5. There will be no order as to costs.