' A.O. RAZIUR RAHMAN (MEMBER).-- The appellant was appointed to officiate as Sub-Judge, on ad hoc basis for a period of 6 months or till the availability of a suitable candidate by the Federal Public Service Commission, by an order dated 17-12-1973, issued by the Commissioner for Northern Areas, Gilgit. After some time, i,e, on 4-6-1974, the F.P.S.C. Recommended the names of 4 applicants for the post of Sub-Judge in the Northern Areas, after having interviewed the candidates who had applied for the post, in response to an advertisement published by the Commission in this behalf.
These persons were selected out of a total of 8 applicants for 5 posts and the appellant was one of them. By an order dated 21-12-1974, issued by the Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs Division, Islamabad, these persons were formally appointed as Sub-Judges in the Northern Areas (Grade 17) w,e,f, 13th December, 1978 or from the date they assumed charge of the post. On 12-9-1981, the appellant addressed a letter to the Chairman, F.P.S.C., Islamabad, requesting that his service as a Sub-Judge may be counted either from the date of his ad hoc appointment or at least from the date of recommendation by the F.P.S.C. It appears that this reference to the F.P.S.C. Was not forwarded, presumably, because the matter was not within the jurisdiction of the Commission and the Estt. Division decided that since ad hoc appointment was a purely temporary appointment pending nomination of a suitable candidate by the F.P.S.C. And the ad hoc appointee was replaceable by a nominee of the Commission, the ad hoc service could not be treated as regular for the purpose of seniority or any other benefit. This decision was conveyed to the appellant on 19- 4-1982, through the K.A.&.N.A. Division. Thereafter, the appellant addressed a representation to the President on 14-10-1982, in which he made a grievance of the fact that Mir Jamil Khan, respondent No, 3, one of the other officers, who was formally appointed along with him w,e,f, 13-12-1978, had been promoted to Grade 18 on 12-8-1982, by passing him, although, according to him, he should have been considered for promotion prior to the said respondent, because he had been holding the post of Sub-Judge w,e,f, 17-2-1973, whereas the respondent was appointed w.e.f 13-12-1974.
According to him, by virtue of his earlier appointment, he should have been treated as senior to the respondent, but, since this was not done, he prayed for cancellation of the promotion of the respondent and for his own promotion instead. In response to this application also, reply was sent by the K.A.&.N.A. Division, which was conveyed to the appellant on 13-3-1983, wherein his prayer for undoing the promotion of respondent No, 3 was rejected. After this, the appellant came in appeal before the Tribunal, under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, on 11-4-1983. The appeal was admitted for hearing, by an order dated 12-5-1983 and, after final hearing on 15-8-1984, is being disposed of by this order.
2. The prayer of the appellant before us is:
(i) That his regular service as Sub-Judge (Grade 17) should count from the date of his ad hoc appointment to this post on 17-2-1973 or, if that is not allowed, at least w,e,f, 4-6-1974, the date on which his name was recommended for appointment by the F.P.S.C.;
(ii) that he be declared senior to respondent No, 3 whose order of appointment as Sub-Judge was issued on 21-12-1974;
(iii) that he should be considered for promotion to Grade 18 from the date on which respondent No, 3 was actually promoted, i,e, 12-8-1982; and
(iv) that he be paid arrears and allowances consequent upon the re-adjustment of his seniority and proposed promotion to Grade 18.
3. We have heard the parties at length and perused the relevant documents. At the outset, it may be mentioned that, although the appellant addressed a representation to the Chairman, F.P.S.C. On the question of his confirmation as Sub-Judge with effect from the date of his ad hoc appointment to that post, as late as 12-9-1981, and subsequently raised the question of his seniority vis-a-vis respondent No, 3 in an appeal to the President on 14-10-1982, after the promotion of respondent No, 3, by an order, dated 12-8-1982, from the documents produced before us by the respondent- department, it is seen that, as early as 14-7-1979, the appellant had raised the question of counting of his seniority as Sub-Judge w,e,f, 17-2-1973 and his representation had been considered and rejected as far back as 26-6-1'980, vide letter No, E-II-2/57/79, addressed by the K.A.&.N.A. Division to the Judicial Commissioner, Northern Areas, Gilgit, in which it was stated, inter alia, "In view of the position explained above, the seniority of Mr. Sher Afzal Civil Judge correctly stands as under:
(1) Mr. Muhammad Khurshid Khan.
(2) Mr. Mir Jamil Khan.
(3) Mr. Sher Afzal.
' The representation of Mr. Sher Afzal Khan has been considered and rejected. The officer may be informed accordingly."
' This was a clear arid final decision given by the competent authority and the appellant should have appealed against this within 30 days of the communication of the order. But he actually came before the Tribunal after a lapse of almost three years on 11-4-1983. The point of limitation was also mentioned in the written objections filed on behalf of the Department. But, since the point was not raised during the arguments, the case was heard on facts and regardless of the question whether the appeal stood barred by limitation, we have given our thought to the matter on the merits of the case and are disposing it of on that basis.
4. There is no doubt that the appellant was appointed on regular basis on the recommendation of the F.P.S.C., about which intimation was given to the appellant on 4-6-1974. The actual notification regarding his appointment on regular basis was, however, issued on 21-12-1974. In that notification, three other persons were also notified as having been appointed as Sub-Judges in the Northern Areas. In this notification, the appellant was shown at serial No, 4, i,e, , as the last of the candidates selected. From the documents of the F.P.S.C. Also, it is seen that on merit, the appellant was assigned the fourth place among the persons recommended for appointment. According to paragraph A(ii) of the General Principles of Seniority:- "If two or more persons are recommended in open advertisement by the F.P.S.C. Their inter se seniority would be determined in the order of merit assigned by the F.P.S.C."
' In view of this very clear and unambiguous rule, there is no merit in the contention of the appellant that, because he was recommended for appointment by the F.P.S.C. On 4-6-1974, he should count his service and, therefore, seniority also with effect from that date. He would have been justified in making this claim had he been the only candidate recommended in open advertisement by the F.P.S.C. Because, under clause (iii)(a), if only one candidate is recommended in open advertisement, he would count his seniority from the date of recommendation if he was already holding the same post on ad hoc basis. Since the appellant was not the only candidate, this provision would not apply but the other one already referred to.
4. However, the appellant has also claimed that, under rule 7 of the Recruitment Rules for Class I posts of Assistant Registrars and Sub-Judges under the Resident and Commissioner for Northern Areas, published on 9-2-1973, he should have been deemed to have been appointed on regular basis as Sub-Judge, Class I, with effect from the date on which he was given the ad hoc appointment, i,e, 17-2-1973. We are afraid, there is no merit in this contention whatsoever. As already mentioned, the rules in question were published on 9-2-1973, whereas the appellant was appointed and posted as Sub-Judge on ad hoc basis on 17-2-1973, i,e, 8 days after the promulgation of the rules. The question of rule 7 being applicable to him just does not arise. To make the point clear, the rule itself is quoted below: "7. The officers already recruited to the posts who fulfil the requirements of these rules shall be deemed to have been appointed under these rules subject to the approval of the Commission."
' The rationale of this rule would be apparent from rule 4 which reads: "4. The appointment of Assistant Registrar and Sub-judge which was hitherto a Class II post will be referred to the Commission for consideration."
5. Had the appellant been recruited before the post was converted into a Class-1 post, his appointment, if approved by the F.P.S.C. Would have been regularized with effect from the date of original appointment. However, he was not appointed when the post was a Class-11 post, and, therefore, he cannot get the benefit of the rule in question. Even if his ad hoc appointment had been prior to the promulgation of the rules, rule 7 would not have been attracted, because ad hoc appointment does not amount to recruitment. Since rule 7 is applicable to those recruited prior to the promulgation of the Rules, the question of its applicability in the case of ad hoc appointees just does not arise.
6. In the light of the above, we do not see any merit whatsoever in the claim of the appellant for being treated as having been appointed as Sub-Judge, Class-I, with effect from the date of his ad hoc appointment.
7. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed, with 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.