1. S. A. MAHMOOD (CHAIRMAN).--This purports to be an appeal under section 4(1) of the West Pakistan Civil Services (Appellate Tribunals) Ordinance, 1969, by which Sh. Abdul Rashid, Head Clerk, Shahpur Division, Lower Jhelum Canal Circle at Sargodha seeks the following relief :-- "It is, therefore, prayed that the appellant may kindly be ordered to be confirmed (as Assistant Clerk) at least w.e.f. 1-4-1944, if no earlier date is available, in place of Khan Abdul Aziz, respondent No. 3, and appellant be promoted in all other grades of Sub-Divisional Clerk, Accounts Clerk and Circle Superintendent accordingly, and in consequence thereof the appellant be declared further entitled to all the monetary benefits, which accrued to him on account of confirmation w.e.f. 1-4- 1944, in place of Khan Abdul Aziz, as was done by the Secretary, Irrigation and Power, Government of West Pakistan, Lahore in respect of his own staff, recruited to permanent war-reserved vacancies, making good at the same time all the monetary loss thus sustained."
2. It was in 1949, that the appellant was confirmed as Assistant Clerk, w.e.f. 15th August 1947. The precise prayer of the appellant is that he should be confirmed from a date earlier than 15th August 1947, and at least from. 1st April 1944, if not earlier, in the vacancy, in which Khan Abdul Aziz, respondent No. 3, was promoted as Sub-Divisional Clerk. Khan Abdul Aziz was promoted as Sub- Divisional Clerk on 1-4-1943, and confirmed w.e.f. 1-4-1944. Therefore, the prayer of the appellant relates to date of his confirmation as Assistant Clerk more than 20 years ago, and his contention is that if he is given an earlier date of confirmation as Assistant Clerk, he should be given earlier dates of confirmation in the higher ranks 9f Sub-Divisional Clerk, Accounts Clerk, and Head Clerks. 'I his presumes that pro--motion and confirmation is each an automatic process, which follows dates of appointment, but that is not so, since so many factors including seniority, satisfactory work, availability of a permanent post of comparative merit' are relevant considerations in their totality; which have to be taken into A consideration in confirmation as well as in promotion. The fact remains that the relief, which the appellant seeks from this Tribunal is one which relates to dates of confirmation of himself and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and not seniority within our jurisdiction, though it may; be ~ conceded that the dates of confirmation were, under the rules, the determining factor for seniority, In any case confirmation, which the appellant wants as. Assistant Clerk took place in 1.949, I.e., 21 years ago and it has been conceded by the appellant that he made no representation, in respect of dates of confirmation of himself or of respondent No. 3 or 4, though he claims to have made some representations relating to his seniority. The jurisdic--tion of this Tribunal is limited to sections- 4 and 7 of the West Pakistan Civil Services (Appellate Tribunals)
3. Ordinance, 1969. Section 4 provides for an appeal before the Tribunal by a Government Servant aggrieved by an order of the competent authority fixing his seniority .within 3 months of the publication of the latest list of seniority, and section 7 confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal to hear and decide appeals against orders of competent authority fixing seniority of Government servants.
4. The relief which the appellant seeks does not fall under any of the sections. It does not relate to seniority, but relates to date of confirmation. The appellant's real prayer is for being assigned an earlier date of confirmation as Assistant Clerk on the basis of war service. This is not a matter which lies within our jurisdiction either under section 4 or 7 of the Ordinance, and the learned counsel conceded this before us.
5. The appellant seeks an earlier date of confirmation as Assis--tant Clerk on the basis of war, service rendered by him from October 1941, to 31-3-1946, but he conceded before us and it was his own case that he was for that reason assigned an assumed date of 20th February 1942, as date of appointment as Assistant Clerk, which shows that he had the benefit of war service. We are unable to understand how the date of confir--mation of the. appellant can be automatically pre-dated.
6. The appellant has riot been able to show that in confirming him, his war service was not taken into consideration, 'in the report, submitted by the Superintending Engineer, respondent No.2 it is stated that while fixing the seniority of the appellant is the gradation-list, he was given the benefit of his war service. That being so, the appellant's has been unable to prove that in fixation of his date of confirmation as Assistant Clerk, benefit of his war service was not given to him. When he has been given the benefit of war service, and assigned an assumed date of appointment as Assistant Clerk as 20th February 1942, four years earlier than his actual date of recruitment on 19tb August 1946, his assumed date of recruitment must have been considered in fixing his date of confirmation and if there has been any delay in his confirmation, it is likely to be due to other factors and not necessarily denial to give him the benefit of war service.
7. Stated briefly, the service histories of the appellant, Abdul Aziz Khan and Altaf-ur-Rehman, respondents 3 and 4 are as follows:- Sh. Abdur Rashid appellant was recruited on 19-8-1946, but has been assigned the date of 20.February 1942, as the date of appointment, because of his war service. He was confirmed as Assistant Clerk in 1949, from the 18th August 1947. He was promoted and confirmed as Sub- Divisional Clerk from 10th January 1948. He was promoted as Accounts Clerk on 6-9-1949, and confirmed from 15th March 1945. He was further promoted as Head Clerk from 11th January 1957, and has not yet been confirmed as Head Clerk.
8. Khan Abdul Aziz Khan, respondent No. 3, was recruited on 1-4-1943, and confirmed as Assistant Clerk from 1-4-1944. He was promoted and confirmed as Sub-Divisional Clerk from 5-9-1947. He was promoted as Accounts Clerk on 21-7-1948, and confirmed from 19th May 1951. He was promoted as Head Clerk on 28th March 1956, and was confirmed as Head Clerk from 25th March 1959.th Mr. Altaf-ur-Rehman, respondent No. 4, was recruited as Assistant Clerk on 27th October 1942, i.e., earlier than respon--dent No. 3, but was confirmed from 1-1 I-45, i.e., a date later than respondent No. 3. He was promoted as Sub-Divisional Clerk on 30th April 1946, earlier than respondent No. 3, but confirmed from 7-9-1947, two days later than respondent No. 3. He was promoted as Accounts Clerk on 10-6-1949, later than respon--dent No. 3, but earlier than the appellant and was confirmed from 6-8-1951, later than respondent No. 3, but earlier than the appellant. He was further promoted as Head Clerk from 23rd November 1954, and confirmed from 1st January 15167. He has further been promoted as Superintendent on 30th November 1968, in which rank he has not yet been confirmed.
9. From the above service particulars, it would appear that the dates of promotion and confirmation of the appellant and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have varied from rank to rank. They have been promoted to 3 or 4 higher ranks in varying precedence and it is impossible on the basis of a plain date of confirmation in the grade of Assistant Clerk to assign automati--cally without considering other relevant factors the date of confir--mation in the grades of Sub-Divisional Clerk and Head Clerk, because confirmation and promotion depend upon a consideration of totality of factors as stated already.
10. The prayer of the appellant, being that he should be con--firmed as Assistant Clerk from a date earlier than 15-8-1947, and assigned 1-4-1954, as the date of confirmation, if no earlier date is available, the relief claimed is one which we as a Tribunal constituted under the West Pakistan Civil Services (Appellate - Tribunals) Ordinance, cannot grant our jurisdiction) being restricted to questions of-seniority falling within sections 4 to 7 of the Ordinance. Since we have no jurisdiction to rant relief, we dismiss this appeal, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.