' Appellant has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the respondents as mentioned above.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order, dated 25-11-1980 be set aside as it is illegal, ineffective, malicious, without jurisdiction, contrary to law and based on mala fide intentions.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant who was B.Sc. In the subject of Physics, Statistics and Mathematics (General) from the Islamia University, Bahawalpur appeared before the Selection Committee on 3-11-1976. He was interviewed by the said Selection Committee and was shown at serial No, 9 on the selection list of the said Selection Committee. After his selection by the said Selection Committee the appellant joined as Statistical Assistant on 16-11-1976 (forenoon).
However, the appellant has been shown junior to respondent No,4 and made the representation against the same but his seniority was not restored. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the parties. I have gone through the comments submitted by the respondents Nos, 1, 2 and 3 as well as the written statement provided by respondent No,4 and have carefully perused the entire record of this case.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order has by respondent No,3 after the lapse of four years maliciously in order to infringe the rights of the appellant. He has further submitted that the order passed by respondent No,3 is without any jurisdiction as he was not competent to do so. He has also made grievance that the entire noting made by the Administrative Officer was in his favour yet ignored. It has been vehemently argued that the appellant has been given seniority by the Selection Committee by placing him at serial No,8 whereas respondent No,4 was placed at serial No,9. The appellant joined in the forenoon and the respondent No,4 joined much later, therefore, appellant should be declared senior to respondent No,4.
6. Learned District Attorney rebutted the claims of the appellant by submitting that the claim of the appellant with regard to the merit list after selection as Statistical Assistant was not based on the facts. According to learned D.A. Eleven candidates including Messrs Muhammad Jamil Ahmad and Habib Ullah (respondent No,4) were interviewed by the Selection Promotion Committee held on 3- 11-1976. The said committee selected both Messrs Habib Ullah and Muhammad Jamil for appointment to the post of Statistical Assistant and placed their names at Serial Nos,1 and 2, respectively in order of merit as would be observed from the minutes of the commit,- With regard to the claim of the appellant that he joined the post on 1,11-1976 and the respondent joined on 26- 11-1976. It was submitted by the District Attorney that respondent No,4 was working with the Office of the Controller of Military Audit and Accounts of Pakistan and was relieved by the Department ten days later then the joining of the appellant. Therefore, this fact does not stand in his way as according to the rule 8.2 and explanation thereunder of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 indicate that in case a group of persons is selected for initial appointment at one time, the earliest date on which anyone out of the group joined service will be deemed to be the date of appointment of all persons in the group.
7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and perused the record of this very carefully with their assistance. As regards the legal objection raised by the appellant that respondent No,3 was not competent officer to pass the impugned order, the appellant has himself admitted in his statement that the said Assistant Director was officiating as Deputy Director Agriculture, Bahawalpur Division. Therefore, the argument that the order was not passed by the competent officer would be without any force. It may be mentioned that even Assistant Director was authorized by the Government of Punjab vide their letter No, I-2/30/76(PR), dated 11-8-1980 to look after the work of Deputy Director Industries, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur till further orders. In this manner the Assistant Director was competent to pass the impugned order. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that no merit list was ever prepared was not based on fact. The record of this case fully establish that 11 candidates including the appellant and respondent No,4 were interviewed by the Selection Committee and the name of respondent No,4 was placed at Serial No,1 whereas the name of appellant was placed at Serial Ne.2. In this manner respondent No,4 is senior to the appellant under all circumstances. I have also satisfied myself perusing the record that his case was thoroughly examined by his superiors when parawise comments obtained by them. It is worth mentioning that respondent No,1 before rejecting his appeal obtained the advice from the SGA&I Department (Regulation Wing) which clearly shows that respondent No,4 is senior to the appellant.
8. In view of the above analysis as well as documentary evidence so produced before me by the respondents I am of the considered opinion that the appellant had no case of seniority over respondent No, 4 and dismiss the appeal without any merit.
' Howsoever, there will be no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.