' ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-- Messrs Muhammad Riaz, Muhammad Aslam Khan, Muhammad Ali Toor, Ghulam Rasul, Muhammad Ashiq, Jamal-ud-Din, and Rehmat Ali, teachers of various Government High Schools, Education Department, Punjab, have made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service tribunals Act, 1974 in which they have impleaded Province of Punjab through Secretary Education, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and Director of Public Instruction Schools, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellants have prayed that the respondents Nos,1 and 2 be directed to calculate the number of the posts in the selection grade w.e.f 1-6-1971 to 30-6-1973 and fill them up by the promotion of the appellants and their deserving colleagues on the basis of their seniority.
3. This appeal is still at the step of preliminary hearing.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants have prayed that the respondent have failed to grant selection grade of Rs,225-15-300/ 20-400 to the appellants and their deserving colleagues w,e,f, 1-6-1971 to 30-6-1973. The appellants have claimed that they were entitled for the selection grade but wrong calculations were made by the Education Department and the list prepared for award of selection grade was incomplete and incorrect, and thus, in this way they have been deprived of award of selection grade to them. The prayer of the appellants is that the respondents be directed to calculate the number of posts available in the selection grade w.e.f 1-6-1971 to 30-6- 1973 and fill these by the promotion of the appellants. Hence this appeal.
5. We have heard the parties.The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the number of posts available in the selection grade during the period 1-6-1971 to 30-6-1973, have not been properly calculated by the Education Department and thus the appellants have been deprived of their promotion in the selection grade. It has been prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondents be directed to calculate the correct number of posts in the selection grade falling within the above-mentioned period and the appellants be promoted in the selection grade.
6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department has relied upon the parawise comments already submitted by the respondents. It has been submitted by him that the factual position has already been given in the parawise comments. The calculations made for the award of selection grade were perfectly correct and the correct number of teachers have already been promoted in the selection grade. Thus, no injustice has been done with the appellants. It has also been pointed out by him that Mr.Muhammad Riaz, appellant No,1 had already been awarded selection grade. There was some typing mistake in the seniority list regarding mentioning of designation and place of .Posting of the appellant which was corrected by order dated 6-6-1975. The remaining appellants were too junior to be considered for the award of the selection grade.
7. It has also been pointed out by the learned District Attorney that this appeal is hopelessly time- barred as the appellants are contesting before the Tribunal Order No,18521, dated 6-6-1975 of Director of Education Lahore Division Lahore, after a lapse of 7 (1/2) years. It has been submitted by learned District Attorney that this appeal is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties, have also perused the record very carefully and have satisfied ourselves that the above versions given in para. 6 of this judgment by the learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department are correct. We cannot remain oblivious of this fact that the appellants are challenging the Order No, 18521/SE, dated 6-6-1975 issued by the Director of Education, Lahore Division, Lahore before this Tribunal on 22-12-1982. The learned counsel for the appellant could not give us satisfactory reply for coming to this Tribunal, by filing this appeal on 22-12-1982, after a lapse of nearly 7 (1/2) years.
Also no application has been filed by the appellant under the Limitation Act for condonation of this delay. We, thus, hold that this appeal is hope- A lessly time-barred.
9. The upshot of the above analysis and discussion is that the appeal is hopelessly time-barred for 7(1/2) years and is dismissed as such, in limine.
' There will be no order as to costs.