1. S. A. MAHMOOD (CHAIRIMMAN).--This is an appeal by Syed Mu--qeem Shah under section 8(1) of the Punjab Civil Services (Appel--late Tribunals) Ordinance, 1970 praying that the seniority list placing the petitioner at serial No. 19 be declared to have been revised without lawful authority, and as being of no legal effect and that the respondents 1 and 2 be directed to determine the seniority of the appellant vis-a-vis the promotees and the respondents from the date of their appointment namely 23rd May 1962.
2. The appellant was represented by Mr. Saeed-ul-Hassan, Advocate. The Board of Revenue and Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division (respondents 1-2) were represented by Mr. A.G. Humayun, Government Pleader Mr. Khalil-ur-Rehman, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondents 3, 5, 6,
8. Respondent No. 4 was present in person. Respondents Nos. 7 and 9 to 13 were absent in spite of notices issued to them.
3. The appellant feels aggrieved by the instructions of the Board of Revenue dated 29-6-1967 and 23- 6-1969which adversely affect the seniority.
4. The appellant was directly selected as a Naib-Tehsildar candidate (A class) on the 6th of May 1960 but his orders of merit was not fixed on that date. The order of merit assigned to him on 24th May 1960 was seventh. He was posted after undergoing training as Naib-Tehsildar on the 23rd of May 1962.He passed the departmental examination on 19-1-1966.
5. In the selection of Naib-TehsildarS held on 6-5-1960 Qazi Abdul Qayum, respondent No. 3, Abdul Rauf respondent No. 5 Farooq Ahmad respondent No. 6, Irshad Ahmad, respondent No. 7, Arif Hussain Bukhari, respondent No. 8, Raja Hassan Akhtar respondent No. 12 and Ch. Ghulam Dastgir, respondent No. 13, were selected as Naib-Tehsildar candidates. They were placed in the order of merit at Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 7 and 11, respectively.
6. Qazi Abdul Qayum, respondent No. 3 was appointed as Naib-Tehsildar, after under going training, on 29th May 1961. He passed the departmental examination on 15-3-1963.
7. Abdul Rauf, respondent No. 5 was appointed as Naib-Tehsilaar on 23-5-1961 after completing his training. He passed his departmental examination on 28-3-1964. Farooq Ahmad respondent No. 6 was appointed as Naib-Tehsildar after under-- going his training on 26-5-1962. He passed the departmental examination of Naib-Tehsildar on 28-3-1964.
8. Irshad Ahmad, respondent No. 7 after undergoing training was appointed as Naib-Tehsildar on 28- 5-1962. He passed departmental Examination on 28th March 1964.
9. Arif Hussain Bokhari respondent No. 8 was appointed as Naib-Tehsildar on 28th May 1962 after undergoing training.He passed the departmental examination on 28th March 1964.
10. Raja Hassan Akhtar, respondent No. 12, after undergoing training, was appointed as Naib-Tehsildar on 29-6 -1961. He passed the departmental examination on 19-1-1966.
11. Ch. Ghulam Dastgir, respondent No. 13 was appointed after completing his training on 2-6-1962 and he passed the depart--mental examination on 19-1-1966.
12. Mr. Muhammad Aslam respondent No. 10 was directly selected as a Naib-Tehsildar candidate on 28th June 1960. After training he was appointed Naib-Tehsildar on 2-6-1962. He passed the departmental examination on 30th January 1965.
13. The above were all directly selected as Naib-Tehsildar candidates.
14. Ch. Ghulam Sarwar, Syed Shabbir Jan and Qazi Muhammad Sharif respondents Nos. 4, 9 and 11 respectively, are promotees (B Class).
15. Ch. Ghulam Sarwar was selected as Naib-Tehsildar candidate on 9-4-1965 and posted as officiating from 17-7-1963. He passed the departmental examination on 11-1-1957.
16. Syed Shabbir Jan respondent No. 9 was selected as Naib---Tehsildar candidate on 26th July 1962 and was appointed as Naib--Tehsildar from 16th November 1963. He passed the department d examination on 28th March 1964.
17. Qazi Muhammad Sharif, respondent No. 11 was selected for promotion as Naib-Tehsildar on 30th May 1964. He has been officiating as Naib-Tehsildar continuously since 2-6-1963. He passed the departmental examination on 19-1-1966.
18. The appellant claims seniority over respondents 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 and 13 on the ground of a higher order of merit. He was at No. 7 while the respondents, except Raja Hassan Akhtar, were below him in order of merit. On May 6, 1960 Raja Hassan Akhtar was assigned No. 7 in order of merit, and in respect of Syed Muqeem Shah, appellant it was that his seniority will be declared later on. On the 24th of May 1960, the learned Commissioner ordered that he be placed at Sr. No. 7 just below Mr. Anwar Ali Cheema. This would mean that he ranks at No. 7 and Mr. Raja Hassan Akhtar would rank at No. 8 just below him. Thus the appellant is senior to them on the bans of order of merit in the same selection. He is senior to Muhammad Aslam respondent No. 10 on the ground that he was selected in an earlier selection.
19. The appellant claims seniority over Ch. Ghulam Sarwar Syed Shabbir Jan and Qazi Muhammad Sharif respondents Nos. 4, 9 and 11 on the ground that while he was promoted to substantive vacancies, these respondents were promoted to tem--porary vacancies. He claims that he should be placed at No. 5 instead of No. 19 in the latest seniority list published on 21-10-1970.
20. The above selections having been rendered invalid by order of the High Court in a writ petition, their selection was validated by Ordinance VI of 1962, which was enforced on 11th April 1962. The Rules of 1962 notified on 5-1-1963 were by notification dated 29th June 1967, made applicable to the parties.
21. In view of what has been stated above and under rule 9(1) (a) we hold that the appellant is entitled to rank senior to the respondents 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 and 13 who were directly selected as Naib-Tehsildar candidates on 6-5-1960 and also Muhammad Aslam respondent No. 10 who was selected in a later selection. We also hold that the date of passing the departmental, examination is no way relevant for the fixation of seniority which had to be determined under rule 9 (1) (a) and that rule 8 is irrelevant for this purpose, as held by us in the case of Ch. Shaukat Ali (Case No. 531/229 of 1970), decided today.
22. In respect of seniority of appellant vis-a-vis respondents Nos. 4, 9 and 11, it appears that they were all selected and appoint--ed to temporary vacancies, as substantive vacancies were filled by senior Naib-Tehsildars and, therefore, seniority must be decided on the basis of date of appointment under rule 9 (2) (1) of 1952-Rules irrespective of the date of passing of the departmental examination. The appellant is senior to respondents 4 and 9 by reason of earlier appointment. Qazi Muhammad Sharif was officiating as Naib-Tehsildar from 2-6-1953, but as he was selected as a candidate on 30-5-1964 that is his date of continuous officiation under the rules.
23. Thus the appellant is senior to him as well.
24. We, therefore, accept the appeal, but leave the parties to bear their own costs.