ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).--Mrs. S.J. Usmani, Headmistress, Government High School for Girls, Krishan Nagar, Lahore has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein she has impleaded the Government of the Punjab through Secretary Education, Civil Secretariat, Lahore, Miss Kalsoom Bukhari, District Education Officer (Women), Lahore and 7 others as mentioned above as respondents, out of which Miss Khanum Durrani, respondent No.7 has died while Mrs. S. Zubair, respondent No.8 has since retired and are thus struck out from the list of the respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order/ Notification, dated 4th November, 1980 be declared illegal, without lawful authority and a nullity in the eyes of law. It has also been prayed by the appellant that respondent No.1 be directed to pass a fresh order/ Notification of awarding selection grade in accordance with the seniority list and law.
3. Brief facts of, the case are that according to the appellant, the appellant and respondents Nos.2 to 9 are working as Lady Education Officers in N.P.S.-17 in the Punjab Education Department and following was the inter se seniority of the appellant vis-a-vis respondents Nos.2 to 9 as per seniority list, dated 8-10-1974:-- S. No.Name of the Officer.Position in the seniority list notified in October,1974.
(1) Mrs. S.J. Usmani (appellant) 28 (2)Miss Kalsoom Bukhari (respondent 2) 35 (3)Mrs. F.B. Saleem (respondent 3) 41 (4)Miss Hamida Abdul Ghafoor (respondent 4)44 (5)Mrs. S.d. Siddiqui (respondent 5) 36 (6)Mrs. I. Karamat (respondent 6) 37 (7)Miss Khalida Khanum (respondent 7) 39 (8)Mrs. S. Zubair (respondent 8) 45 (9)Mrs. A.R. Nawaz (respondent 9) 47 Another seniority list was issued by the -Education Department under Notification, dated 23-11-1980 wherein the appellant was shown junior to the respondents. On the basis of their seniority the respondents were given selection grades but the appellant was not considered senior enough to be given the selection grade. These orders were passed, vide Notification, dated 4-11-1980. The appellant is aggrieved by this order/ Notification, dated 4-11-1980. Hence this appeal.
4. The Special Attorney of the appellant has argued that the appellant was shown senior to the respondents in the seniority list which was issued in the year 1974 on regional basis. The respondent No.1 issued another seniority list in the year 1980 which was on provincial basis. The respondent No.1 was not competent to issue two seniority lists contradicting each other. This contradiction has created anomaly without any sound and is against the law. The appellant's Attorney further argued that this second seniority list being unlawful be ordered to be cancelled and seniority list of 1974 prepared on regional basis, according to the rules, be restored. According to 1974 seniority list, the appellant is senior to the respondents and ignoring her for not allowing the selection grade, as notified on 4-11-1980, is not justified. The appellant's Attorney prayed that this Notification of 4-11- 1980 be quashed and the appellant granted the selection grade on basis of her seniority of 1974.
Controverting these arguments the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the issue of the seniority between the appellant via-a-via the contesting respondents has already been settled as decided by this Tribunal in its earlier judgment in Case No.247 of 1981. This appeal of the appellant was dismissed and thus seniority issue of the appellant via-a-via respondents has been settled as decided by this Tribunal. Thus, all the contesting respondents are senior to the appellant.
As the matter stands finally concluded as far as seniority is concerned, on the basis of which the appellant is claiming the selection grade, thus, this issue cannot be re-opened again as the Tribunal cannot review its own earlier judgment/decision. The learned counsel for the respondents also rebutted the argument regarding regional and provincial basis for fixation of the seniority as plea taken by the appellant's Attorney, by submitting, that regional cadre existed upto Class II level posts and selection posts. Thus, there is no force in the arguments put forth by the appellant's Attorney as the appellant was an employee of Class II. Concluding their arguments the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellant has no case as she is junior to all the contesting respondents and her claim for allowing her selection grade over and above her seniors is uncalled for and without any merits.
5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments put forth by the parties, consulted the record and have also examined the parawise comments submitted by the respondent No.1. As far as issue of seniority is concerned, it has already been decided by this Tribunal, vide Case No.247 of 1981, Mrs. S.J. Usmani v. Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Education Department and others whereby the appeal was dismissed. We have also satisfied ourselves that the appellant and the contesting respondents at that time were the same as shown in the present appeal. Thus, as far as seniority is concerned the matter stands concluded and the appellant is junior to all the contesting respondents. The selection grade has been claimed by the appellant on the basis of her seniority of the year 1974, which is not in operation keeping in view the final seniority list, issued by the Government in the year 1980. Thus, the claim of the appellant for the selection grade over and above her seniors is not justified. Thus, the appellant has failed to prove her case and convince us about the merits of her appeal.
6. Keeping above analysis, in view, we hold that there is no force in this appeal which is dismissed as such.
There will be no order as to costs.
A.E.