1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--WAPDA seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the decision of the Service Tribunal dated 11-1-1984- restoring to the respondents their position in the seniority.
2. After rendering compulsory service in the Army the appealing respondents were recruited as Electrical Engineers in WAPDA. They were allowed advance increments for rendering Army Service, in terms of rule 5(2)(b) of WAPDA Service of Electrical Engineers Rules by the Authority on 23-7-1977 which decision was expressed as hereunder and given effect to:-- "The period of satisfactory service rendered by any Engineering Officer-in Army in commissioned rank before joining Power Wing WAPDA may be counted towards seniority under the provisions of Rule 5(2) (b) of the West Pakistan WAPDA Service of Electrical Engineers Rules, 1965 read with para. 4 of Authority's decision contained in this office U.O. No. KGA-1/1/66-Secretary dated 27-6-1977.
3. Past cases may be examined in the light of the above decision and seniority fixed accordingly. In future the seniority of such persons will be fixed at the time of recruitment."
4. In another meeting on 7-8-1979 the Authority re-decided the issue as follows.
5. "It was decided that the officer would be given seniority in WAPDA in case his services. Were requisitioned by the Army."
6. This decision was sought to be applied retrospectively even to those recruited and fixed in seniority earlier to 7-8-1979. The affected individuals appealed to the Service Tribunal and succeeded.
7. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an authority competent to take a decision can also revoke or modify the decision. Such a power could not be denied.
8. Under rule 5(2)(b) of the Service of Electrical Engineers Rules the Authority was competent to take such a decision in case of direct recruits. A decision competently taken, implemented and acted upon for years could certainly be rescinded or modified but not so as to reopen the past and closed cases. It could not have retrospective effect. It could not unsettle matters already competently settled.
9. The petition raises no such question of law of public importance as to require further examination.
10. Hence leave to appeal is refused. '