SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This is a departmental appeal in the matter of seniority. From the order of the learned Chief Justice whereby the representation of the appellants was rejected on the ground of laches. The appellants and the respondents are all private secretaries and the appellants claim that they are senior to the respondents. One of the respondents, namely, Mr. Muhammad Din Basra, has since been appointed as a Civil Judge. He was neither present nor represented before us.
Apparently on account of his appointment as Civil Judge he is no longer interested in defending the appeal.
2. In January, 1975, 26 posts of Judgment-writers were upgraded to National Pay Scale 16 with the rider that higher qualifications should be prescribed for persons to be appointed against them.
Since the existing Service rules applicable to the establishment of the High Court were silent with regard, to filing of appointments in N.P.S.16 a Full Court meeting was convened on 3-4-1975. By a resolution the Full Court prescribed the educational as well as other qualifications for the upgraded posts. It also inter alia set down the marking standards for determining the merits of persons who were to be initially appointed to fill them. It is significant to note here that by the upgradation of the posts all the then serving Judgment-writer were not automatically appointed to the high scale.
3. To give effect to the resolution of the Full Court the Chief Justice appointed a Committee of the three most senior Judges who were then available. The Committee was to make recommendations after interviewing and examining the records of the candidates for the posts.
The Committee interviewed 49 Judgment-writers and in accordance with the criteria prescribed by the Full Court recommended 26 of them for appointment. It also determined their order of merit.
The details of the marks awarded by the Committee to the candidates are to be found at page 83 of the File bearing No.V.Z.2(a) Pt.8. The final list prepared by the Committee is at page 33 of the same file. Column 2 of the list would indicate that while fixing the order of merit the inter se seniority of the Judgment-writers was completely upset. Thus, Mr. Ali Hussain who was the most senior among the Judgment-writers was placed at Serial No.19 in the order of merit. On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Ghahi who was at Serial No.9 in the seniority list appeared at the top of the merit list prepared by the Committee. Even though the appellants were senior to the respondents as Judgment-writers but in the order of merit they were placed below the latter. By an order dated 20-6-1975 the Chief Justice accepted the recommendations of the Committee and made the appointments in accordance therewith. In his order the Chief Justice specifically referred to the order of merit as determined by the Committee. In the notification issued by the office consequent upon the order of the Chief Justice the names of the persons appointed were shown in the same order as had been indicated by the Committee.
4. Admittedly, the appellants did not immediately object to being shown in the notification at places lower than those assigned to the respondents. The explanation offered by them in this regard is that the order in which their names appeared in the notification was not to be treated as one indicating the inter se seniority of the appellants. This does not appear to be correct as the appointees did treat the order in which their names found mention in the notification as determining their seniority in the upgraded posts. Thus, Mr. Mehmood Shaukat who was placed at Serial No.9 in the notification immediately made a representation that his merit had been wrongly worked out inasmuch as he had not been given credit by the Committee for securing a First Division in F.E.L. Examination. His representation was accepted by the Chief Justice after issuing show-cause notices to four persons who had been placed above him in the notification. The appellants must have been aware of the representation of Mr. Mehmood Shaukat and the decision of the Chief Justice thereon. On the other hand they kept A quiet for eight years before agitating the matter. The learned Chief Justice was therefore justified in rejecting their representation on the ground of laches.
5. In support of this appeal the main plank of the case of the appellants is rule 19 of the High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules. This rule reads as follows:- "The seniority of the members of the establishment shall be determined by the date of confirmation in the post, provided if two or more members are confirmed in the same grade on the same date, they shall retain the seniority which they held in their previous posts "
As already mentioned in the rank of Judgment-writers before the upgradation of (he posts the appellants were senior to the respondents. If the matter were to be decided on the mere construction of this rule the appeal of the appellants would have some merit but then, as already pointed out, it was not just a case of mere promotion from a lower grade to higher one. It was essentially a case of selection in respect of posts with regard to which the then rules were entirely silent. The Committee and the Chief Justice were, therefore, free to determine the seniority of persons selected to fill those posts. Thus, rule 19 which deals with ordinary promotion from a lower grade to a higher grade was not attracted here.
7. The appellants also referred to the fact that the dates of their confirmation were anterior in point of time to those of the respondents. Considering that both the appellants and respondents were appointed by the same order the dates of their respective confirmations will have no effect on their respective seniorities.
8. For the reasons stated above this appeal is without any substance even on merit as well.
Accordingly, we would dismiss it.