1. S. A. MAHMOOD (CHAIRMAN).-This is an appeal by Mr. S. A. Jaffri, Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bahawalpur, under section 4 (1) of the Punjab Civil Services (Appellate) Tribunal Ordinance, 1970. The appeal was amended and in the amended appeal, the appellant claims the following reliefs
(1) That Government be directed to implement their order conveyed in letter dated the 7th April 1962.
(2) That the seniority list of the Deputy Registrars of West Pakistan Co-operative Service Class I issued by respondent No. 2 under Notification dated the 8th May 1970 in which respondents 3 and 5 have been placed senior to the appellant should be declared illegal, inoperative and ineffective against the rights of the appellant and the appellant's seniority be fixed above respondents 3 to 5.
(3) That the seniority of the respondents should be counted from 18-2-1968 one 29-6-1968 onwards in Class I instead of 1-1-1967.
2. The appellant is represented by M. Maqsud Hassan, Advocate. The Punjab Government and the Registrar, Co--operative Societies, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are represented by A. G. Humayun, Government Pleader. Ch. Abdul Majid and Ch. Shahabuddin are present in person along with Mr. Muhammad Afzal Lone and Mr. Ehsan Ali Naqvi, Advocates. Ch. Rashid Ahmed being on deputation to 1L0 at Canberra is not present today.
3. Mr. Bashir Ahmed Khan learned Member of the Tribunal being ill today it unable to be present and consequently the case has been heard by the Chairman and the remaining Member of the Tribunal.
4. Mr. S. A. Jaffri, the appellant, joined the Co-operative Department as an Inspector on 21-3-1941. He was promoted as officiating Assistant Registrar on 1-9-1955 and was confirmed from 14-6-1957. He was promoted as Officiating Deputy Registrar on 1-1-1967, and has been confirmed with effect from that day.
5. Ch. Abdul Majid respondent No. 3 who was directly, recruited as Assistant Registrar was selected as a candidate on 18-2-1953. He having completed his training joined the Department on 1g-2-1956.
6. He started officiating as Deputy Registrar (Supply) with effect from 1-9-1962, vide R.
1. He has been confirmed as Assistant Registrar from 18-2-1956 and as Deputy Registrar from 1-1-1967.
7. Ch. Shababuddin respondent No. 4 was also selected as a candidate on 18-2-1953 and After training joined as Assistant Registrar on 18-2'-1956. He has been confirmed as Assistant Registrar from that day. He was promoted as Chief Auditor by order dated 31-5-1963 (Annexure R-2) and took over on 5-6-1963. He has been confirmed as Deputy Registrar from 1-1-1967.
8. Ch: Rashid Ahmed respondent No. 5 was selected as a candidate on 29-6-1953 and joined the Department as Assistant Registrar after completing his training on 29-6-1956. He has been confirmed from that date as Assistant Registrar. He has been promoted as Officiating Deputy Registrar from 1-1-1967 and has been confirmed from the same date.
9. In the integrated seniority list of Deputy Registrars as on 31-4-1970 respondents 3, 4 and 5 have been shown just above the appellant in seniority.
10. Before dealing with the case, it may be mentioned that the appellant challenged the seniority of respondents 3 and 5 as Assistant Registrar by an appeal before this Tribunal. In that appeal Case No. 134/29 of 1970 Mr. S. A. Jafri v. The Province of West Pakistan and others decided on 31-3-1971 the contention of the appellant was not accepted and he was not declared senior to the respondents in the grade of Assistant Registrar. It was held therein that as the seniority of the parties was to be determined with reference to the dates of their substantive appointment the appellant having been confirmed later than the respondents, he could not claim seniority over them. His appeal was dismissed.
11. In the present appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant having referred me to the integrated seniority list as on 30-4-1970 contends that the dates of continuous appointment of the respon-- dents 3 and 4 is 1-1-1967 and not 1-9-1962 and 31-5-1963 as stated above. It has, however, - been explained by Mr. Shamim Akhter, Section Officer, Food and Co-operative Department of the Government of Punjab that the two respondents were actually promoted to Class I from these dates, namely 1-9-1962 and 31-5-1963 and the date 1-1-1967 was mentioned against their names for the reason that Departmental Reorganization took place on that date. Whatever may be the reason for citing the date 1-1-967 in their case, the two respondents have placed before us copies of the order of promotion as Annexure R-I and R-I1 which support their claim, and we are unable to go behind those orders. The date of confirmation being the rule of seniority under the Punjab Provincial Co-operative Services Class I Rules, 1950, the appellant and respondents 3, 4 and 5 were confirmed on the same date, namely 1-1-1967 and as such respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 would carry with them their basic seniority in Class II and be senior to the appellant. The same would be the position even if we were to accept 1-1-1967 as the date of conti--nuous appointment of the three respondents as is claimed by the appellant on the basis of entry in the seniority list.
12. Relying on rule 5 of the West Pakistan Co-operative Service (Class I-Men's Section) Rules, 1963, the learned counsel for the respondents 3--5 contends that the promotion of the appellant before 12 years service being contrary to the rules, they could not have been promoted on 1-1-1967 or the other dates on which they were promoted and, therefore, cannot claim seniority in appoint--ment or confirmation over the appellant. It is pointed out that while the appellant satisfies the condition of 12 years service in the Department, none of the three respondents does and in consequence their appointments being contrary to the rule are illegal and do not give them any right of seniority.
13. It was pointed out to us in this connection that respondents 3 and 4 were promoted as Deputy Registrar before these rules came into Force on. 20th December 1963. Reliance on behalf of the respondents is, also placed on rule 5 of the Punjab Provincial Co-operative Service Class I Rules, 1950 according to which not less than five years service is enough for recruitment by promotion. It is argued that the respondents were covered by these rules anti having put in not less than five years service could be promoted. No doubt Mr. Rashid Ahmed was promoted on 1-1-1967 when the 1963-Rules were in force, but it has been pointed out that the period of 12 years in rule 5 was amended and reduced to seven years by an amendment made on 25th March 1969. He had more than seven years' service on 1-1-1967 when he was promoted. Thus by operation of the amendment his promotion would be rendered valid and the claim that his promotion is invalid does not remain well founded. It is of course argued that this amendment could not take retrospective effect. It is obvious that the validity of his promotion is being challenged when the amendment has come into force in 1969 and there is no question of retrospective operation in giving Ch. Rashid Ahmed the benefit of the amendment.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant also challenged the competency of two of us to hear and decide the appeal. Mr. Bashir Ahmed Khan, learned Member being ill today is unable to attend. We see no force in the contention in view of subsection (2) of section 10 of the Punjab Civil Services (Appellate,) Tribunal) Ordinance, 1970 which provides as under: ---10,- (1) Except as otherwise provided, the appeals and other matters admitted for hearing shall be beard and decided by the Tribunal as a whole, after giving due opportunity to the parties to be hoard.
(2) In case the Chairman or a member is unavoidably absent or is, for any reason, unable to take part in the proceedings of the Tribunal, the other members of the Tribunal or the Chairman and the other members, as the case may be, may continue to hear and finally dispose of the appeal or other natters requiring decision of the Tribunal as a whole."
15. For the reasons stated above, we cannot declare, the appellant senior to respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and, therefore dismiss this appeal with no order as to cost.