FAIZ KARIM (MEMBER).--The appellant, Miss H.A. Rahim has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the impugned order, dated 24-12-1985 of the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Co-operative Department, Lahore (respondent No. l) vide which the seniority of the appellant was disturbed and she was declared junior to Miss Rehana Khokhar, Lady Assistant Registrar (Contesting respondent No. 2). The appellant impleaded the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Co-operative Department, Lahore and Miss Rehana Khokhar, Lady Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rawalpindi as respondents Nos.1 and 2 respectively.
2. Through this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be declared senior to Miss Rehana Khokhar, contesting respondent No.2.
3. The facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 Miss Rehana Khokhar joined Co-operative Department as Lady Welfare Worker in Lahore on 23-11-1971. In October, 1973 she applied for the post of Inspectress Co-operative Societies against the quota reserved for direct Inspectresses. On the recommendations of LAR, CS, Lahore the Office of Registrar, CS, Punjab, Lahore took up the case of the appellant against the posts which were to be filled in by initial recruitment. Consequently, on the recommendations of the Departmental Selection Committee, the contesting respondents Nos.2 and 2 others were promoted as Inspectresses candidates against the direct quota vide letter, dated 1-1-1975 of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The contesting respondent No.2 completed 15 months institutional training and field training prescribed for the posts of Inspectresses on 18-8- 1977 which should have been completed by 30-11-1976. The respondent No.2 was appointed as Industrial Inspectress, Cooperative Societies, Gujranwala on 9-2-1978. On the other hand the appellant, Miss H.A. Rahim started her service carear in August, 1948 as Lady Supervisor and she was taken as Sub Inspectress in October, 1949. She was accepted as candidate for post of Inspectress on 27-11-1971 and was promoted as Inspectress on 30-9-1974 but had to revert in original post for want of vacancy. The appellant was again promoted as Inspectress on 15-9-1975.
The appellant, Miss H. A. Rahim as well as contesting respondent-Miss Rehana Khokhar were confirmed as Inspectresses w.e.f. 15-9-1976 and 12-2-1980 respectively. The contesting respondent- Miss Rehana Khokhar made a representation to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies for determination of the seniority under Rule 8.2 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. The Registrar under the Provisions of Rule 10(2)(a) of the said Rules declared Miss H.A. Rahim, appellant senior to Miss Rehana Khokhar as Inspectress Cooperative Societies and filed the representation of Miss Rehana Khokhar--contesting respondent, having no force vide his order, dated 30-4-1985.
Subsequently, Mr. Javed Ahmad Qureshi, Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Co-operative Department issued the following notification, dated 24-12-1985:- "No.SO(E)1-15/85.--After careful examination of the seniority case of Miss. H.A. Rahim, Lady Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Lahore and Miss Rehana Khokhar, Lady Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Rawalpindi, it has been decided to declare Miss Rehana Khokhar, Lady Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rawalpindi senior to Miss. H.A. Rahim, Lady Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Lahore. Miss H.A. Rahim should get necessary training as prescribed in the Service Rules of the Co-operatives Department."
Aggrieved by this order the appellant Miss H.A. Rahim filed the instant appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal.
4. At the time of arguments the learned counsel for the appellant after comparing the service record as well as the various assignments held by the appellant-Miss H.A. Rahim and contesting respondent-Miss Rehana Khokhar stated that the impugned order, dated 24-12-1985 of the Secretary, Co-operative Department is not a speaking order. The learned counsel for the appellant added that the impugned order, dated 24-12-1985 does not disclose whether it was passed as an appeal against the order, dated 30-4-1985 of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies or issued on any representation of contesting respondent-Miss Rehana Khokhar or was recorded on the initiative of the Secretary Cooperative Department. The learned counsel for the appellant further stated that the Registrar, Cooperative Societies was the competent person to determine the seniority of the appellant as well as the contesting respondent and the Secretary was not competent to entertain any appeal against his order. The learned counsel for the appellant concluded his arguments while stating that the impugned order of the Secretary, Cooperative Department was issued at the back of the appellant and she was not given any opportunity before passing the impugned order, dated 24-12-1985 of the Secretary Cooperative Department.
5. The learned District Attorney as well as the learned counsel for the contesting respondent opposed the appeal and stated that the impugned order, dated 24-12-1985 of the Secretary, Co- operative Department was justified and the Registrar Co-operative Societies was not competent to decide the issue of mutual seniority of the appellant as well as the contesting respondent. The learned District Attorney and the learned counsel for contesting respondent No.2 added that the Secretary Co-operative Department had on sufficient ground decided the seniority in favour of the contesting respondent-Miss Rehana Khokhar. The learned District Attorney and the learned counsel for. Contesting respondent further stated that Miss H . A. Rahim has yet to undergo the training according to the Service Rules of the Co-operative Department. The learned District Attorney and learned counsel for contesting respondent closed arguments while stating that the appellant Miss H. A. Rahim is now on LPR and she has no longer any interest for the determination of the seniority favourable to her.
6. We have carefully considered the points so raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned District Attorney as well as the learned counsel for the contesting respondent. We have also perused the relevant record including the written objections filed by the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Co-operative Department, Lahore (respondent No. 1) as well as Miss Rehana Khokhar (contesting respondent No.2). To start with as already assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant the impugned order, dated 24-12-1985 does) not disclose as to how it was issued i. e. Whether as an appeal against, the order, dated 30-4-1985 of the Registrar Co- operative Societies or on representation of Miss Rehana Khokhar (contesting respondent No.2)' or on the initiative of the Secretary Co-operative Societies. Besides that the impugned order does no reveal that the appellant was given any opportunity to contest any appeal or representation filed by Miss Rehana Khokhar, contesting respondent No.2 or any case before passing A the impugned order, dated 24-12-1985 even if for the arguments sake it was issued on the initiative of the Secretary. In addition to that the impugned order, dated 24-12-1985 does not indicate the reasons or the justification under which it is based. As such indeed the impugned order is not a speaking order. Lastly the written objections filed under, signatures of the Secretary Co-operative Department mentions in para. 1, that he set aside the orders, dated 30-4-1985 of the Registrar Co- operative Societies because it was against rules and facts. This would again show that before entertaining any revision or representation against the impugned order, dated 30-4-1985 of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies the Secretary, Co-operative Department (respondent No.1) did not call the appellant to contest the same and explain her view point.
7. Hence the appeal is accepted and impugned order, dated 24-12-1985 of the Secretary Co- operative Societies is set aside and the order passed by the Registrar Co-operative Societies, dated 30-4-1985 would remain in the field.
Announced in the open Court on 8-10-1986.
Judgment to be communicated to the parties.
No orders for the costs.
M.Y.H/93/Lb./S