' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY, (MEMBER).-Muhammad Mumtaz, Draftsman, Highway Division, Khushab, has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the respondents Nos, 1 to 5 as mentioned above.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that impugned orders dated 28th June, 1984, 15th August, 1984 and 20th August, 1984 be set aside and the appellant be declared senior to the respondent No,
5. It has also been prayed that respondent No, 4 be declared not eligible for promotion as Divisional Head Draftsman.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined service on 4th December, 1969 (afternoon) as Tracer and Mushtaq Ahmad, respondent No, 5 was also recruited as Tracer alongwith the appellant on the same date i,e, 4th December, 1969, but joined his duties (forenoon). The appellant and the respondent No, 5 were promoted, Draftsmen vide office order No, 15, dated 19th January, 1974 by the Superintending Engineer, Highway Circle, Sargodha. They continued as such till the year 1982 when vide order No, ED-15/1860/E, dated 17th July, 1982 (Annexure .B') of the Superintending Engineer, Highway Circle, Sargodha addressed to the Executive Engineer, Highway Division, Mianwali, the appeal of Muhammad Mumtaz, appellant regarding seniority was accepted and he was placed senior to Mushtaq Ahmad (respondent No, 5) on the basis that Messrs Mushtaq Ahmad and Muhammad Mumtaz were not promoted as Draftsmen on the basis of their seniority as Tracer but were selected/ promoted on the basis of their technical qualification, therefore, their seniority has been fixed keeping in view their age factor in term of Rule 8 (a) of Civil Servants Appointment and Conditions Rule, 1974 read with para. 2-A (ii), Services General Administrative and Information Department circular No, S.O.R.-II (S&GAD) 3-12/79, dated 24th November, 1979. Mushtaq Ahmad (respondent No 5) made a representation to the Chief Engineer, Highway Department, Lahore for the above fixation of seniority by the Superintending Engineer, Highway Circle, Sargodha. The Chief Engineer, Highway (respondent No, 2) considered the seniority case of the appellant and the respondent No, 5 at length and vide order dated 15th August, 1985 (Annexure 'J') decided as follows :- "The case has been examined and it has been decided that Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad is senior to Muhammad Mumtaz as Draftsman."
On the basis of this seniority the appellant and the respondent No, 5 were further promoted as Head Draftsmen with effect from 1st July, 1983. Respondent No, 4 Muhammad Masood Akhtar, who was otherwise senior to the appellant and the respondent No, 5 was however, superseded. He made an appeal to respondent No, 2 against this promotion of both of these officials. His appeal was accepted vide order dated 28th June, 1984 of respondent No, 2 against this promotion of these officials. His appeal was accepted vide order dated 28th June, 1984 of respondent No, 2 and he was promoted as Head Draftsman in place of the appellant who was reverted as draftsman being junior, out of these three officials. Hence this appeal.
3. We have heard the parties i. e., Masud Ahmad Riaz, Counsel for the appellant, Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Counsel for respondent No, 5, respondent No, 4 who was present in person and Mr. A. G.
Humayun, District Attorney on behalf of the respondent No, 1, 2 and 3.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was correctly declared as senior by the Superintending Engineer, Highway Circle, Sargodha vide his order dated 17th July, 1982 (Annexure 'B') on the basis of his selection as Draftsman from Tracer vis-a-vis respondent No, 5, as they were selected on the basis of their technical qualification, therefore, their seniority had to be fixed as Draftsman and not as a Tracer in view of their age factor in terms of rule 8(a) of Civil Servants Appointment and Condition rule 1974 read with para 2-A (ii) Services General Administration and Information Department, Circular No, SORII (S&GAD) 3-12/79 dated 24th November, 1979 1979. As the appellant was older than Mushtaq Ahmad (respondent No, 5), he stood senior to him and his seniority was correctly decided by the competent authority i. e., Superintending Engineer, Highway Circle, Sargodha but this seniority was altered by the respondent No, 2, Chief Engineer, North Zone, Highway Department, Lahore on the wrong analogy that respondent No, 5, Mushtaq Ahmed and the appellant were promoted as Draftsmen (and not selected), and their seniority had to be fixed keeping in view their seniority in the lower grade of Tracer and not as Draftsmen. Hence, the Chief Engineer, Highway, North Zone, respondent No, 2, had wrongly given the seniority to respondent No, 5 over the appellant which is against the rules and be quashed. It has also been pointed out by the appellant's counsel that the reversion of the appellant from the post of Head Draftsman to Draftsman which has been done by the respondent No, 2 is also irregular and against the facts of the case. Respondent No, 4 Muhammad Masood Akhtar was not a qualified person for the job of Head Draftsman and could not be promoted as Head Draftsman on the basis of his technical qualifications. Thus, the promotion of respondent No, 4, is also irregular and against the rules. The learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in case No, 318 of 1981, decided on 24th November, 1981, in case of Ali Akbar Khan v. Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and 2 others and also Government of the Punjab Communications and Works Department letter No, SOEIII (C & 5-2/76 (PT-11), dated 28th April, 1982, in support of his above arguments.
5. On the other band the learned counsel for the respondent No, 5 has rebutted the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that respondent No, 5, Mushtaq Ahmad, joined the Department as Tracer on 4th December, 1969 (forenoon) wherein the appellant joined on 4th December, 1969 (afternoon). He has further referred to Order No, 15, dated 19th January, 1974 of the Superintending Engineer Highway Circle, Sargodha and has submitted that this order clearly shows that the respondent No, 5, and the appellant were promoted and not selected as Draftsmen. Thus the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not correct that the appellant and respondent No, 5 were selected and not promoted. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent No, 5 that the seniority of the respondent No, 5 was at Serial No, 1 viz-a-viz the appellant in this order which clearly shows that the respondent No, 5 is senior to the appellant as Tracer as well as Draftsman. However, later on the Superintending Engineer, Highway Circle, Sargodha, wrongly fixed the seniority of the appellant declaring him senior to the respondent No, 5, against the fact of the case as he took the appellant as "selected" but "not promoted" which fact was contrary to his own promotion order dated 19th January, 1974, mentioned above in favour of the respondent No, 5 and the appellant. This wrongful done by the Superintending Engineer, was corrected by the Chief Engineer, North Zone, Highway Department, Lahore respondent No, 2, the appellate authority vide his order, memo : No, 70-E11/76/1221/E (4), dated 15th August, 1984, and the respondent No, 5 was correctly declared by him senior to the appellant. Thus there is no case of grievance for the appellant who is junior to the respondent No, 5.
It has been prayed by the learned counsel for the respondent No, 5, that keeping in view these facts of this case, the appeal of the appellant be dismissed.
6. Regarding reversion of the appellant from the post of Head Draftsman to the draftsman, the learned District Attorney has submitted that the respondent No, 4, Muhammad Masood Akhtar, was senior to both of the appellant and respondent No, 5, but was not promoted as Head Draftsman as there was some confusion regarding their technical qualifications. On his representation to the Chief Engineer, North Zone, Highway Department, Lahore, (respondent No, 2), the Chief Engineer, considered the case at length and decided that the appellant as well as respondent Nos, 4 and 5 were fully technically qualified for promotion to the post of Head Draftsman. As, the qualifications of the appellant and respondent No, 4 and 5 were taken at par, the respondent No, 4, being senior to the appellant was promoted as Head Draftsman and consequently, the appellant being junior to respondent Nos, 4 and 5, was reverted as Draftsman. Concluding his arguments it has been submitted by the learned District Attorney, thus, no injustice has been done with the appellant.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have consulted the record of this case carefully. The facts of the case are that the appellant and respondent No, 5 were appointed as Tracer and joined on the same date i. e., 4th December, 1969 but the respondent No, 5 joined in the (forenoon) and the appellant joined in the (afternoon). Thus the appellant was jnnior to respondent No, 5 as Tracer. Later on in the year 1974, the appellant and the respondent No, 5 were promoted to the post of Draftsman which is quite clear from the order No, 15, dated 19th January, 1974, of the respondent No, 1, wherein the respondent No, 5 was shown at Serial No, 1 and the appellant at Serial No, 2 as draftsman as well. The same respondent while deciding the appeal of the appellant vide his order dated 17th July, 1982, took the wrong plea that the appellant and the respondent No, 5 were "selected" and "not promoted' . Thus, he wrongly interpreted the rules and declared the appellant senior to the respondent No, 5 against the facts of the case taking him as "Selectee Draftsman" instead of "Promotee". Aggrieved of this order, respondent No, 5, represented to the Chief Engineer Highway Northern Zone, Lahore, respondent No, 2, who took the following decision. The relevant note portion from the file of the Chief Engineer is reproduced below :- {{TABLE TEXT}} "From The S. E. Sargodha.
No, EM-17/1369/E. Dated 17th July, 1984.
(1) Subject :-Drawing Establishment.
(2) P. U. C. With enclosures may kindly be seen with reference .To our memo. Dated 28th June, 1984 at cp-30.
(3) The facts of the case are that Messrs Mushtaq Ahmad and Muhammad Mumtaz were appointed as Tracer in the Highway Circle, Sargodha. Their service particulars are given below :- {{TABLE TEXT}} Name Date of Date of Office where he birth joining as was posted as Tracer Tracer 'void** Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad.
4.3-51 4.12-69 (F:N.) Highway Division Sargodha.
Mr. Muhammad 5-1.49 4.12-69 (A.N) do.
Mumtaz.
(4) Subsequently they were considered for promotion as D. Man on the basis of their Technical qualification of D. Man by the S. E. Highway Circle, Sargodha vide his office order No, 15 dated 19th January, 1974 and they joined duties as under :-
1. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad 24.1-74 F.N.
2. Mr. Muhammad Mumtaz 23.1-74 A.N.
(5) against the seniority maintained as Tracer in his Circle in Mr. Muhammad Mumtaz made an appeal to his S. E. Sargodha 1982. His appeal was accepted by the S. E. Sargodha who declared him senior to Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad vide his memo : dated 17th July, 1982.
(6) Now both the D'men have filed the appeals and the S. E. Sargodha vide P.I.C. Has forwarded the same to this office for decision. From the perusal of the service particulars of both the officials, it transpires that Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed joined the Department on 4th December, 1969 F. N. While Mr. Muhammad Mumtaz on 4th December, 1969 A. N. Subsequently they were promoted as D. Man by the S. E. Sargodha vide his office order dated 19th January, 1974 in one batch. In this office order it was clearly stated that they were promoted as D. Man in the interest of public service. Accordingly under the rules, their inter-se-seniority is to be reckoned from the date of joining the Department and not from the date of promotion orders. As already explained above, Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed joined duty in the Department on 4th December, 1969 F. N. i. e., one day earlier to Mr. Mumtaz and thus former is senior to the later. It may be pointed out that decision of the S. E. Made in 1982 declaring Mr. Muhammad Mumtaz as senior to Mr. Mushtaq is against the rules. In this respect, it is stated that inter-se-seniority of the officials cannot be altered/changed simply on the ground that the junior on his promotion as D. (7) Man assumed charge earlier than the Senior Official. Besides, the rules/instructions quoted para. 3 of the S. E. Sargodha memo : dated 17th July, 1982 are equally applicable in the case of both the officials.
(8) In view of above, the office is of the view that Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed is senior and would remain senior to Muhammad Mumtaz in all stages/grades, if approved, the S. E. Sargodha may be informed accordingly. Submitted for order please.(Sd.)
29-7-1984
(9) S. E. In view of the position explained in para. 3 to 6 above, tray take action as suggested in para. 7 above. Submitted for orders.
(Sd.)
S. E.
29-7-1984.
(10) While accepting appeal, of Mr. Masood D. Man of Sargodha Circle, vide C. p. 30, the reversion of junior official viz. Mr. Mumtaz Hussain was ordered. The S. E. (S) vide P.U.C. Has forwarded a case indicating that Mr. Mumtaz is not junior but the other Divisional Head D. Man viz. Mr. Mushtaq is the junior one. The case has been examined in the office note vide para. 6, which may kindly be perused and orders passed. Dir./(N)
(II) Pl. Speak,(Sd.)
A.O.
30-7- 1984
(12) As per para. 7 above. A. O. (Sd.)
Dir (N)
30-7-1984 (Sd.)
Dir (N)
13-8-1984"
We are in agreement with the above decision of the competent authority and hold that the seniority of the appellant vis-a-vis the respondent No, 5, Mushtaq Ahmad, has been correctly declared by him and Mushtaq Ahmad respondent No, 5 in all stages/grades is senior to the appellant.
8. As far as the respondent No, 4, Muhammad Masood Akhtar, is concerned, also the record of the Chief Engineer, Highway Northern Zone, respondent No, 2, has been consulted. From this record it is clear that the technical qualification of the appellant, respondent No, 4 and 5 have been taken at par and all three have been declared as qualified persons for the promotion to the post of Head Draftsman. The relevant noting portion from the file of the Chief Engineer is reproduced as below :- "From.
The S. E. (Sargodha). memo : No, E.M.-17/1100/E, Dated 26.5-1984 (1)
Subject : Drawing Establishment.
(2) P. U. C. In a reply of our memo : dated 9th April, 1984 and 15th April, 1984 at Cp. 17 and 18 of Vol. 11 which may kindly be seen, wherein the S. E. (Sargodha), was directed for furnishing necessary comments in the matter immediately.
(3) In the (P. U. C.) the S. E. (S) has intimated that Mr. Muhammad Masood Akhtar Draftsman is holding 2 years certificate of Building Draftsman from Board of Technical Education, Lahore by passing examination privately, whereas Punjab Highway Draftsman and Tracers Service Rules, 1979 allow promotion as Head Draftsman who are diploma holder. He is not holding diploma from recognized Institute. As already stated by him vide his previous letter dated 25th October, 1982, at C. P. 274 of Vol. I that Messrs Muhammad Mumtaz and Mushtaq Ahmad are qualified Civil Draftsmen of one year's course from Government School of Engg. Rasul. He has further stated that rule don't permit unless relaxation of qualification is allowed by the competent authority.
(4) The background of the case is that the S. E. (S) vide his memo dated 8th February, 1983 at C. P.
297 forwarded a case of drawing Establishment of his circle for seeking an advice from this office whether or not both Draftsmen having passsd one year's course as civil Draftsman from Polytechnic Institute, Rahul and Draftsman passed privately from Board of Technical Education, Lahore as Building Draftsman are to be considered for posting as Head Draftsman.
(5) The case was examined at N.P./167-170 and the S. E. (S) was informed vide T/Office Memo : dated 13th February, 1983 at C.P. 298 that Draftsman having passed one year regular certificate of civil draftsman from the Polytechnic Institute is decidedly more useful as compared to the Draftsman having privately obtained from Polytechnic Institute of one year's certificate of Building Draftsman who is not of any utility in the Highway Department. The S. E. (S) issued promotion order of certain junior Draftsmen as Head Draftsmen in his Circle on the basis of above advice of this office (except Mr. Muhammad Masood Akhtar, D. Man).
(6) One Mr. Muhammad Masood Akhtar, D. Man in the Highway Circle, Sargodha made an appeal to Tracer Office against the orders of his supersession as Head Draftsman issued by the S. E. (S) vide his office order of No, 60, dated 11th May, 1983, at C.P.
332.
(7) In view of this, the S. E. (S)'s office is avoiding constantly to promote Mr. Muhammad Masood Akhtar, D. Man as Head D. Man who had appealed to this office Mr. Muhammad Masood Akhtar, D.
Man possesses 2 years certificate of Building D. Man Course issued by the West Pakistan Board of Technical Education. Lahore, whereas Messrs Mushtaq Ahmad and Muhammad Mumtaz promoted as Head Draftsmen by the S.E.(S) possess (one) year's certificate of Polytechnic Institute, Rasul (Extension Programme).
(8) This case was discussed with the Building Department who have supplied a copy of the. C & W's Memo : No, S.O.E.-III (C & W) 5-2/76 (PT-II) dated 28th April, 1982, according to which both the Draftsmen (either qualified from Rasul or privately passed from Board of Technical Education) are equivalent to each other.
(9) In view of above the appeal of Mr. Muhammad Masood Akhtar, Draftsman may be accepted who is far senior from both Messrs Mushtaq Ahmad and Muhammad Mumtaz Head Draftsmen. In that case, the junior most among the other two promotees is Mr. Muhammad Mumtaz, Head Draftsman as per record of T.
0. Who will have to be reverted as Draftsman being the junior most Head Draftsman by the S.E. (S).
(10) Submitted for orders pl. Issued No, 70-E II/76/806-E (u) Dated 28.6-84 to S.E, Sargodha.
(Sd.)
S. E.
25.6-84 (11 ) As proposed above.
(Sd.)
Abdul Hamid A.
0. 26.6-1984
(12) The proceeding note gives complete background of the case.. May take action as suggested in para.
9. Dir (N) is competent to approve. Dir./(N)
(13) Approved.
A.
0. (Sd.)
26-6.1984 (Sd.)
26-6.1984"
We are also in agreement with the above decision of the competent authority and hold that respondent No, 4, Muhammad Masood Akhtar has been correctly promoted as Head Draftsman and the appellant who was junior to respondents Nos, 4 and 5 has been also correctly reverted to the post of Draftsman. Hence there is no cause of grievance and no injustice has been done to the appellant.
9. Result of the above complete analysis of the case is, that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such. There are 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.