' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).---Shamsher Abbas Bokhari, Tehsildar, Tehsil Talagang, District Cambellpur has filed this appeal against the fixation of the seniority in the list of Tehsildars published by the Government of the Punjab on 11 th August, 1981. The appellant has impleaded Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the appellant be considered as Tehsildar in the batch of year 1978 when Ch. Muhammad Sharif Naib-Tehsildar, Ferozewala and Mr. Muhammad Yaqub, A.
C.
0. Nankana and several others were promoted. The appellant has further prayed that he be placed below Serial No, 6 in the list dated 11th August, 1981 and Nos, 7 to 42 in their list may be placed junior to the appellant, and also other Naib-Tehsildars whose names do not appear in the list published by Government in list 1 to 8 of 1981 but decidedly they are junior to him.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined the Revenue Department as Naib-Tehsildar in March, 1968. He passed the Tehsildari Examination in the year 1974 and in the year 1975, promotions were made from Naib-Tehsildars to Tehsildars. In the year 1978 the promotion of the appellant was not affected due to adverse entry given to him by the D. C., Sheikhupura Mr. Faiz Karim which was later on expunged. The promotion of the appellant was deferred in the year 1978. However, the appellant received the seniority list, dated 11 th August, 1981 showing his seniority amongst Tehsildars at No, 43 of the list. The appellant made a representation but no reply was given to him, therefore, he has preferred this appeal, before this Tribunal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney alongwith contesting respondents and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that since his colleagues who were junior to him as Naib-Tehsildars have since been promoted as A. C. 0 therefore, it was in the interest of justice and equity that he be given original seniority to which he was entitled. The appellant has mainly based his claim that as he has passed Tehsildari Examination on 15th April, 1974, but could not be promoted as Tehsildar during the selection of 1975, 1978 and 1979, for reasons not known to him, therefore, respondent was not justified to declare him junior to his colleagues who were junior to him in the rank of Naib-Tehsildars. He has mentioned the names of Ch. Muhammad Sharif and Malik Muhammad Yaqub and stated that although earlier had bad record and latter was suspended yet their promotion was not withheld. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the appellant was not appointed as Tehsildar on regular basis therefore, according to section 7 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, seniority in the grade to which a civil servant was appointed, shall take effect from the date of regular appointment to a post in that grade. He has submitted that the appellant was not aggrieved person within the meaning of section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, therefore, he has no locus standi to invoke jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Learned D, A. Has claimed that the appeal is barred by time as the appellant is aggrieved by order, dated 11th August, 1981, therefore, limitation started against him on the said date and his incompetent representation cannot extend time in his favour. He has also pointed out that the competent authority in the case of promotion of Naib-Tehsildar to the post of Tehsildar, would be Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue. In this context it has been submitted that under section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, the appellant was under obligation to avail remedy before the next higher authority which is Member, Board of Revenue, which the appellant had failed to do so, therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
5. With regard to the merits of the case the learned D. A. Argued that in fact the appellant claimed pro forma promotion under the garb of seniority, a concession which cannot be claimed as matter of right by virtue of the bar contained in rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974.
6. We have taken into consideration the points raised by both the parties and find that the record of this case discloses that the appellant was never appointed on regular basis as Tehsildar and his promotion as such was on ad hoc basis. His ad hoc promotion was further extended vide an order, dated 11th August, 1981, therefore, for all purposes the appellant belonged to the category of Naib- Tehsildars and cannot claim promotion from amongst Tehsildars unless and until he was appointed on regular basis. Ws. Have also examined the service record of the appellant and find that he was not promoted in 1978 due to unsatisfactory record of service. In accordance with the rules the passing of Departmental examination of Tehsildars is prerequisite for appointment and promotion to such rank, therefore, prior to the passing of this examination, appellant was not eligible for consideration for promotion. However, when the appellant was promoted on regular basis on 17th December, 1980, his seniority would be in line from that date amongst his colleagues.
The order, dated 11 th August, 1981, cannot be considered a seniority list, in fact it would be an order extending the period of his ad hoc promotion. On 27th June, 1981, the date on which seniority list was issued, the name of the appellant is shown as Naib-Tehsildar. As such his claim to have been inducted to the post of Tehsildar, would be hardly tenable. It is also an established rule that when a person is superseded or ignored for promotion, he cannot claim seniority against those who have superseded him. If the authority so competent in its own wisdom and discretion, declined to appoint the appellant as Tehsildar on regular basis, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere with the same.
7. The result is that the appeal of the appellant is dismissed as being without any merits. The parties shall bear their own costs.