' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-M/S. Rustam Ali, Ch. Yusaf Ali, Muhammad Akram, Muhammad Munawar Tubassum and Nazar Hussain Shah, have filed these appeals under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, separately under numbers as given above. As the points of law and facts in all these appeals are identical in nature, therefore, we have decided to dispose of all these five appeals with this single judgment.
2. The appellants have impleaded the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab Services, General Administration and Information Department, Lahore, Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Services, General Administration and Information Department, Lahore, and respondents Nos, 3 to 146 as per list Annexure 'A' and respondents Nos, 147 to 155 as pro forma respondents as per list Annexure
3. With regard to respondents Nos, 3 to 146, they can be divided into the following categories : "Two particular categories are Promotees and Direct Recruits. Promotee respondents are respondents Nos, 3 to 18, 40 to 64 and 91 to 155 whereas Direct Recruits are respondents Nos, 19 to 39 and 65 to 90. It would be convenient to state here that among the promotees, the appellants have assailed the seniority of respondents Nos, 3 to 31 on the ground that the notional dates of pro forma promotion given to them, were not justified and they also stood superseded when they were considered alongwith them. The other promotees respondents according to the learned counsel have no right of seniority over the appellants as even their actual dates of promotion are later than the appellants."
4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants joined service in the Punjab Civil Secretariat, as Junior Clerks and Stenographers from various dates ranging from years 1944 to 1946. They were later on promoted as Senior Clerks and then as Assistants, Stenographers/Private Secretaries.
Similarly promotee respondents were also originally recruited as Junior Clerks and were later on promoted as Senior Clerks and Assistants, respectively. Some of them joined as Stenographers and then were promoted as Senior Scale Stenographers and Private Secretaries. According to amended rule 5 of Section Officers Service Rules, 1962 and Section Officers Departmental Examination Regulations, 1973, Departmental Examination for Section Officers, was conducted by the Punjab Public Service Commission on 22nd and 23rd May, 1974 and its result was announced on 27th December, 1974. According to the Notification, dated 27th December, 1974 whereas all the appellants were declared successful respondents Nos, 4, 5, 9, 17, 41, 50, 55, 60, 63, 93, 102, 103, 125, 128, 140, 141 and 144, were declared unsuccessful. As regards other promotee respondents, they did not appear in the examination at all. At the time of success of the appellants in the said examination, there were 30 vacancies of Section Officers against promotion quota. Accordingly, the Departmental Promotion Committee met to consider the case of promotion against those vacancies. A summary containing the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee has been placed on the record, which was approved by the then Chief Minister, on 27th January, 1975. According to this summary it was recommended/decided as follows :- "
6. The question of regularization of appointment of 44 Section Officers promoted on ad hoc basis before the promulgation of Section Officers (Departmental Promotion) Examination Regulations 1973, was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for Grades 16 and 17 posts in the Punjab Secretariat in its meeting held on 28th November, 1974 and also the issue regarding promotion of the officials who have already qualified in the Departmental Examination held in May, 1974. The Committee has made the following recommendations :-
(1) that the 44 Section Officers may be promoted regularly w,e,f, the date vacancies are available prior to 23rd October, 1973 i,e, the date of the promulgation of Section Officers (Departmental Promotion) Examination Regulations, 1973. Accordingly out of 44 Section Officers promoted on ad hoc basis, named in Annexure 'A' the 12 senior most Section Officers who were due for regular promotion according to their seniority and were appointed on ad hoc basis may be regularised against the 12 available vacancies from the promotion quota (i,e, total of 75-63-12).
(ii) That the 18 vacant posts out of the quota reserved for former C.S.P./P.C.S. And Technical Officers should be diverted to the promotion quota with retrospective effect, i,e, from the date such vacancies were filled up on ad hoc basis by the method of promotion. The persons appointed against these posts on ad hoc basis are to be regularized in their inter se order after temporary allocation of these posts to the promotion quota. This allocation is meant to be temporary for all intents purposes and whenever any vacancies occur in future from amongst these 18 posts, they will revert to the original quota of former C.S.P./P.C.S. And Technical Officers. The promotions shall be made on temporary basis.
(iii) That the remaining 14 Section Officers out of the 44 appointed on ad hoc basis before the promulgation of the Section Officers (Departmental Examination) Regulations, 1973, may be regularised against vacancies meant for deputation, leave reserve and training in the same manner set out in sub-para. (ii) above.
' The Committee observed that it has agreed to the above arrangements in order to prevent hardship to these Officers and to ensure that no serious vacuum occurs and that the interest of administration itself does not suffer by displacement of sizeable group of experienced officers. In this proposed arrangement, the posts and quota of direct recruits has not been touched."
7. "The other recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee are as follows :-
(i) That the 18 Section Officers promoted on ad hoc basis after the promulgation of the Section Officers (Departmental Promotion) Examination Regulations, 1973, named in Annexure 'B' shall stand reverted after the expiry of their present tenure, but in any case within SIR months from 24th August, 1974 I.e. The date of cu-forcement of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules ;
(ii) that the officials who have qualified in the Section Officers (Departmental Promotion)
Examination Regulations, 1973 may be promoted in their inter se order against available vacancies immediately and in any case against the vacancies caused by the reversion of the Officers as stated in sub-para. (I) above. These officials are to be promoted on temporary basis and not on ad hoc basis. The temporary promotion of all these officials shall be subject to availability of vacancies at the time and if no vacancy is available, the junior-most person shall be reverted in accordance with subsection (2) of section 10 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The Committee, however, clarified that Assistants and Senior Scale Stenographers having 12 years of total service not continuous are eligible for promotion ; ' At present some Superintendents of the Secretariat have obtained a stay order against promotion which were to be made on the basis of the examination by filing suit in the civil Court challenging the validity of the Section Officers (Departmental Promotion) Examination Regulations, 1973. Orders promoting these officials therefore, would issue after the stay order have been vacated, for which Government has filed an appeal."
' Accordingly, it is clear that the appellants as well as contesting respondents 3 to 13 were considered together for the purpose of promotion, whereas the Departmental Promotion Committee recommended the appellants for promotion and the then Chief Minister approved them for promotion as Section Officers in a temporary capacity but not on ad hoc basis, it was ordered that the said respondents shalt stand reverted. Accordingly the appellants were promoted vide Notification, dated 23rd May, 1975 and their date of promotion has been shown as 23rd May, 1975. Although at that time it was ordered by the competent authority that the aferesaid respondents shall stand reverted yet somehow or other no reversion took place and they continued to work as such, on ad hoc basis. It may be mentioned here that they had been promoted as Section Officer on ad hoc basis from 17th April, 1974.
5. Subsequently Notification, dated 23rd October, 1979 was issued whereby respondents' ad hoc promotions were regularized w. e. f. 17th April, 1974 (in case of respondents Nos, 3 to 12) and w,e,f, 27th April, 1974 in respect of respondent No, 13.
6. The second group is promotee respondents viz. 14 to 18, 40 to 64, 91 to 146 and they were promoted as Section Officers on regular basis from various dates which have been shown against their names in the impugned seniority list. In any case these dates are admittedly later than 23rd May, 1975 the date on which the promotion of the appellants was duly notified. Respondents Nos, 19 to 39 and 65 to 90 were Direct Recruits through Public Service Commission, who were inducted in service from the dates as mentioned in the impugned seniority list, against their names admittedly later than 23rd May, 1975.
7. In the first instance, Government of the Punjab issued Notification dated 2nd November, 1980, which contains two parts. In the first part, seniority list of Under-Secretaries, Section Officers and Superintendents of Punjab Secretariat, as stood on 1st October, 1980 was notified. In this list all the respondents were shown. The second part of this notification contained a list of Section Officers other than those appointed on regular basis. It contained the following headnote : - "Their seniority will be determined in accordance with the provision of section 7 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974."
' Appellants names were shown in this list. Since the seniority of the appellants qua the respondents, was not fixed they represented for fixation of their seniority. It was brought to our notice during the course of arguments that the appellants filed Writ Petition No, 3154/3 of 1979 in the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in which they inter alia, prayed that Government of Punjab, be directed to prepare and issue a final seniority list of Section Officers. Ultimately Government issued impugned final seniority list on 21st October, 1981 wherein the appellants have been shown junior to all the promotee and Direct Recruit respondents. Their representations were also rejected vide order, dated 13th October, 1981. Hence these appeals
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Masud Ahmad Riaz, Mr. D. M. Awan, Learned Counsel for respondent No, 8 Muhammad Ajaib Malik and Mr. Muhammad Rashid Malik, learned Counsel for respondent No, 7 Muhammad Aslam Khan, and have also heard at length in person M/s. Muhammad Amir, Ghulam Afzal Khan and Nazar Hussain Hashmi, and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that all the appellants in this case were promoted in the prescribed manner, as they fulfilled all the requisite conditions, therefore, their promotions would be for all purposes, promotions on regular basis. Accordingly to learned counsel the nomenclature like word "Temporary" used in the case of the appellants, has got no meaning at all, as the very fact that they have been promoted in the prescribed manner, would make them regular as Section Officers, as so declared by various superior Courts of this country. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his arguments on 1982 SCMR 408, 1983 PLC (C S T) 247, 1980 PLC (CST) 134, 194 and 319. Arguing his case further the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that senior group of the respondents, which is respondents Nos, 3 to 13, would not be promotees on regular basis as their promotion has not been effected through prescribed manner as laid down in section 2(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, even the Governor's plenary powers in declaring ad hoc promotion as regular from notional dates, cannot wipe out this inherent defect in their promotions, particularly another glaring fact stares at their face inasmuch as they were superseded at the time when the case of the appellants and these respondents, was taken by Departmental Promotion Committee and placed before the Competent Authority in the year 1975.
Learned counsel for the appellant has gone one step further by submitting that even if it was assumed that the respondents promotion was regular, but their non-participation in the Section Officers Departmental Promotion Examination held on 22nd, 23rd May, 1974 resulted in there, supersession, in term of rule 14(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. Reliance has been placed on 1980 SCMR 11 and 1982 SCMR 888.
10. It was emphasized by the learned counsel for the appellants that when the respondents Nos, 3 to 13, lost their seniority, by virtue of supersession and non-appearance and failure in the examination, a prerequisite for their promotion, but other respondents being admittedly junior to these respondents as well as promoted/recruited later than the date on which the appellants stood promoted on regular basis, would definitely be liable to be declared junior to them.
11. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent No, 8, Mr. D. M. Awan, Advocate and Mr. M.
Rashid Malik, Advocate, for respondent No, 7, have come out with a preliminary objection that the appeals would be time-barred for the following reasons :-
(1) That the first list of seniority was notified on 12th November, 1980 and the same has not been challenged.
(2) That the order of 1975 by which the promotion of the appellants were made on temporary basis, has not been challenged, therefore, they may be considered temporary in the sense of ad hoc, for all times to come.
(3) As the notification, dated 23rd October, 1979 has also not been challenged by the appellants the same still holds the field and it was too late to challenge the same through these appeals by the appellants.
(4) Learned counsel came out with an objection which according to them, was fatal against the appellants, as virtually this was a matter of determination of fitness or otherwise for promotion of the appellants as well as of the respondents, therefore, this Tribunal has jurisdiction under section 4 (1)(b), to look into this aspect of the case.
12. With regard to the merits of the case, they have vehemently contested and challenged the assertion made by the learned counsel for the appellants and have submitted that even if the appellants were promoted in a prescribed manner and the respondents were not, this in no way would detract the notification issued by the Governor, as the said authority has vast powers to do and undo things in any manner, he likes.
13. It was further argued on behalf of the respondents counsel that the sole criteria to gain the status on regular basis for a promottee, would be that there should be the posts available against the vacancy to which he is promoted. According to the learned counsel, if it was proved from the record, that the appellants were promoted on regular basis against the vacancies so available, in promotion quota, he would be willing to concede their case, as according to him this criteria was sine qua non for promotion on regular basis.
14. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced before us and in order to find whether there was any force or strength in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that promotion in a prescribed manner, could only confer the status of being regular or not. For this, we will first of all advert to section 2 (1) (a) and section 2 (2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, which defines ad hoc appointment and regular appointment, respectively as under :- " 2 (1)(a) 'ad hoc appointment' means appointment of a duly qualified person made otherwise than in accordance with the prescribed method of recruitment, pending recruitment in accordance with such method ;"
2(2) For the purpose of this Act, an appointment whether by promotion or otherwise, shall be deemed to have been made on regular basis if it is made in the prescribed manner."
It is also beneficial to quote section 4 of this Act, which is as under :- "4 Appointments to a civil service of the Province or to a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Province, shall be made in the prescribed manner by the Governor or by a person authorised by him in that behalf."
' Section 2(l) (g) of the said Act, further defines "prescribed" means prescribed by rules. As section 2
(1) (g) mentions certain Rules by making a mention of 'prescribed manner, we would like to reproduce the relevant rules which according to our judgment, would be rule 5 which runs as under :- "5 "Method of recruitment-(1) Recruitment to the service, shall be made as follows :
(a) 50% of the vacancies shall be filled by initial recruitment.........................
(b) The remaining 50% of the vacancies shall be filled by selection on merit with due regard to seniority from among the Superintendents of the West Pakistan Secretariat (Ministerial) Service, or if no such Superintendents are considered suitable for appointment to the service, from amongst the ' Assistants of the West Pakistan Secretariat (Ministerial) Service."
' This Rule was further amended and substituted on 16th July, 1973 which is given below :- "(b) the remaining fifty per cent of the vacancies shall be filled by promotion in the following manner :-
(i) five-seventh of the vacancies by selection on merit with due regard to seniority from among the members of the Provincial Secretariat (Ministerial) Service holding the posts of Superintendents or, if no such Superintendents are considered suitable for appointment to the service, then from amongst the members of the Provincial Secretariat (Ministerial) Service holding the posts of Assistants with at least twelve years' service as such provided that the said Superintendent/Assistants have passed the Departmental (Promotion) Examination prescribed by the Government for the purpose ; and
(ii) two-seventh of the vacancies by selection on merit with due regard to seniority from among the private Secretaries of the Punjab Secretariat or, if no such Private Secretary is considered suitable for appointment to the Service, then from amongst the Senior Scale Stenographers of the Punjab Secretariat with at least twelve years' service as such provided that the said Private Secretaries/Senior Scale Stenographers have passed the Departmental (Promotion) Examination prescribed by the Government for the purpose."
' The crux of these Rules as given above, would be that the appellants and respondents in this case, could only be promoted, in the manner, so provided by such Rules. These Rules make it crystal clear that a person to be promoted from the class of the appellants as well as respondents (promotees), first of all, have to possess two prerequisite qualification ; i. e. 12 years experience in service and passing of Departmental (Promotion) Examination. In the light of these rules and section 2, so quoted above, we have to see, whether the appellants and the respondents did fulfil the conditions precedent, before they could be conferred the status of promotees, on regular basis.
In view of the history of this case, supported by unrebutted document on the record, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellants did fulfil the prerequisite qualification for promotion on regular basis, and were so promoted on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee duly approved by the Chief Minister, vice versa the facts stand established that the promotees-respondents, did fulfil the conditions of 12 years' service in the line, as well as they were duly recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee, but they failed to fulfil the Condition of passing of Departmental (Promotion) Examination. If the legislature, in its wisdom, would have used the word 'OR' for fulfilment of these three conditions, we would have certainly cleared the case of the respondents, by holding that they did fulfil one of the conditions so laid down in this behalf. What we face in this case is, that the Rules do not give this concession and demand that a person who has been promoted on regular basis, must have experience of 12 years' service, be recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee and also passed the Section Officers Departmental (Promotion) Examination, therefore, we arc of the firm view that the passing of the Departmental (Promotion) Examination, was a prerequisite for the respondents as well as for the appellants to claim promotion, on regular basis. At this juncture we would advert to the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents, in which it was submitted that in fact the Rules regarding the passing of Departmental Promotion Examination, was relaxed by the Government, vide their letter of Additional Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, dated 5th October, 1975, therefore, the impact of this clause, would not be of any avail to them. We have seen the letter on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents and find that the letter was issued on 5th October, 1975. Since the examination had been held and the result had been declared, therefore, it would have no retrospective effect on the matter, which stood past and closed. We are further pursuaded to repel this argument on behalf of the respondents, when we further find that the said Committee duly considered respondents Nos, 3 to 13 alongwith the appellants, on 27th January, 1975, much before the issuance of this letter and the respondents stood superseded, by virtue of that event. We further find that the impact of this letter stood clarified by subsequent letter of Government, dated 16th February, 1976, in which, it was observed that the aforesaid relaxation, did not apply to the examination, which had been prescribed in the Service Rules. Moreover, it would not be out of place to mention that the relaxation is only made in individual case of hardship and not en bloc without taking into consideration the hardship so mentioned.
15. In order to substantiate our findings, we have perused in this respect ruling of 1982 SCM R 408.
Briefly the facts of that case are that the Assistant Agr. Engineers were recruited by the Government of Punjab, in the prescribed manner in the year 1968. However, instead of appointing them on regular basis, they were appointed on ad hoc basis in 1968 ; and they were allowed to continue, on ad hoc basis, upto 1972, when they were appointed on regular basis. In the seniority list, their seniority amongst the Assistant Agr. Engineers, was reckoned from 1972, instead of 1968. They filed appeals before this Tribunal. Wherein they claimed that since they had been inducted in service in the prescribed manner, therefore, they should be treated to have been appointed on regular basis, since 1968, for the purpose of seniority and epithet of ad hoc, as used in their notification of appointment, has no effect on their regular appointments. The appeal was accepted and the decision of this Tribunal, has been reported as Muhammad Ashraf v. Secretary, Agricultural Department . It was held by us that their appointments, were regular and that the said period would count towards seniority. Feeling aggrieved from our decision an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the learned Judges of Supreme Court of Pakistan, have upheld the decision of the Tribunal. As regards other case cited before us 1983 PLC (C S) 247 we find that it is also quite identical to the facts of the present case. In that case also, the appellant Miss Shahnaz Bano was appointed by the Agriculture Census Organization, as a Data Processing Supervisor, in N.
P. S-12 on ad hoc basis, although her appointment was conferred in a prescribed manner. She was denied the right of seniority and for that purpose, she filed appeal before the. Federal Service Tribunal. The learned Federal Service Tribunal after detailed examination of the record, found that her appointment was fully in accordance with the Rules and as such, relying upon sections 2 (1) and 2 (2) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, declared that the order of Government, appointing her on ad hoc basis, "shall not make the appointment of the appellants on ad hoc basis which was doubtlessly on regular basis as concluded above".
16. We have deeply examined the arguments of the parties on the point, whether the Governor/Government using its plenary powers, could confer pro forma promotion on persons, whether they fulfil the prerequisite qualifications as laid down under the Rules or there are some restrictions, placed on these powers by the Act itself. In the present case, what we see is that although the respondents did not pass the Departmental Promotion Examination, which was one of the prerequisite conditions for their promotions, yet the Governor vide its Notification of the year 1979, conferred upon them, the status of regular promotees, from the date they were holding appointments on ad hoc basis. For this, we refer to section 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, which has already been reproduced above and find that this section made it amply clear that even the Governor would be bound to make/order appointment/promotion only in the prescribed manner and in no other way. As this is a mandatory provision of an Act and unless and until the same is amended, we cannot hold that plenary powers of the Governor/Government do not come within the purview of the section. The Governor could, of course, confer pro forma promotion. If the aspect of this case would have been brought to the notice of the worthy Governor that the persons on whom the pro forma promotion was being conferred, from the date of their ad hoc promotions, who had failed in the examination and had been superseded on that score by the Departmental Promotion Committee, particularly in view of the fact that the Rules of examination, did not stand relaxed by a general letter, dated 5th October, 1975, the worthy Governor would not have accorded his approval to an act, which was so suggested to him.
17. We have also carefully taken into consideration the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents which according to him is a sheet anchor of this case, that appointment/promotion on regular basis, could only be made, if there was a vacancy available against the said post.
According to the learned counsel for the respondents there was no vacancy at all in promotion quota for appointment on regular basis of the appellants, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, they could be conferred the status being regular promotees. In this respect we have examined the record of this case, particularly the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee and1 find that this point has been made very clear by the said Committee. It was made very clear that there were 12 unfilled vacancies lying in the promotion quota for the appellants and if the same had been filled by others then the appellants, the junior most person shall be reverted from the said vacancy to make the same available to the appellants. This objection to our mind, has no impact of any kind, as we find that the vacancies were available in the promotion quota, but the same were being occupied by persons not eligible for the same. It was incumbent upon the Department to revert the persons so occupying such vacancies, in order to make these available for the qualified persons, fulfilling all the qualified prescribed for these posts.
18. With regard to objections Nos, 2 and 3 noted in para. 11 of our judgment, we repel the same as according to substantive provision of law contained in sections 2 (1) and 2 (2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, as well as the law laid down by the Supreme Court and B Federal Service Tribunal in the above referred authorities, appellants need not have challenged the two appointment orders of 1975 and 1979 in respect of appellants and respondents, respectively.
Whether, nature of their appointments was regular or not has to be determined by law and we have already determined it in earlier part of our judgment.
19. With regard to the last objection which concerns ouster of jurisdiction of this Tribunal, on the face of it although looks weighty, we have no hesitation to repel the same after going through the record. We find that the determination of fitness for promotion of the appellants has already been determined by a duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee/Competent Authority, therefore, the matter of determination of their fitness for promotion as Section Officers is not before us. What we are required to do is only to determine the exact nature of their appointment in the light of the law and their claim of seniority. For this purpose we rely on the judgment of this Tribunal delivered in the case of Muhammad Ashraf v. Godernment of the Punjab, etc.Which was upheld by the Supreme Court of Pakistan and reported as 1982 SCMR 408 and find that similar point came before the Tribunal for determination and it was held that as the promotion had taken place, the Tribunal was only concerned with the determination of correct seniority keeping in view the nature of appointment in accordance with law, therefore, we hold that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to he these appeals as observed in the earlier part of this judgment.
20. With regard to the point of limitation it is obviously without any force, as the list of 1980, is by itself incomplete list with a note "that the appellants' seniority will be determined later on". In view of the said note on the said list, if any appeal, would have been filed by the appellants, the same would have been considered as immature. To our considered mind the impugned order will be the rejection of the represen tation of the appellants, which is, dated 13th October, 1981, and the appeals have been filed within the prescribed time.
21. With regard to the status of the direct Recruits vis-a-vis the appellants, for matter of seniority it would be sufficient to say that these direct Recruits were inducted into service, of course, on regular basis, rather later than the date on which the appellants were so promoted. In view of the above, the appellants would definiteiy rank senior to all of them by virtue of their dates of regular promotions. Similarly respondents Nos, 14 to 18, 40 to 64 and 91 to 146, as these promotees have their date of promotion, undisputedly later to the dates of the appellants promotion, a fact so established on the record, therefore, they will also be junior to the appellants by virtue of their dates of promotion.
22. Before we part with this case it would be appropriate to mention that the additional documents filed by the appellants, as mentioned in the appeals, have been considered, by this Tribunal only because permission for the same was granted to the appellants counsel on a miscellaneous application filed for this purpose.
23. In view of the detailed discussions so made above, taking into consideration, all the aspects of the case and fully considering the arguments of the parties, we hereby proceed to accept the appeals, set aside the impugned seniority list, in so far as it relates to the parties and hold that the appellants would deem to be senior to all the respondents except those mentioned at Nos, 147 to 155 aspro forma respondents, as per list Annexure A-1', There will be no order as to costs. 1981 PLC (C S) 731