1. ' Aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge of Sind High Court, Mr. Justice Ajmal Mian (as he then was), disallowing his claim of seniority over Sultan Nasir, Superintendent (Grade-16), the appellant has approached this Tribunal for the desired relief. Mr. Mazhar Ali Chohan was heard in support of the appeal. In course of his arguments, the learned counsel submitted that before filing the present appeal, departmental appeal was preferred to the Chief Minister. He also produced the said appeal along with the original letter addressed by the appellant to the Registrar, High Court requesting him to forward the same to the concerned quarters.
2. ' The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant were given due consideration. There is no denying the fact that the appellant is an employee of High Court of Sind. Therefore he is admittedly governed by the High Court of Sind Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the High Court Rules). His appointment and other conditions of service including seniority arc regulated by the said rules. The question arises if this Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate on violation of any of the High Court rules. As provided in section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973, this Tribunal can intervene if "any civil servant is aggrieved in respect, of any of the terms and conditions of his service." The terms and conditions of service of a civil servant are those given in section 3 of the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973. The said section reads as under: "The terms and conditions of service of a civil servant shall be as provided in this Act and the rules."
3. It is clear from above section read with section 4 of Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973 that this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain appeal only in respect of violation of terms and conditions of service of a civil servant as spelt out by the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the rules framed thereunder. Obviously the impugned order does not relate to the terms and conditions of service arising from said Act and rules. It speaks of the decision under High Court rules referred to above which are applicable to the High Court employees including the appellant. Accordingly this Tribunal cannot interfere in this case.
4. ' Assuming for the sake of argument that this Tribunal does possess the jurisdiction to decide the present appeal, yet the appellant was required to exhaust departmental remedy before filing the present appeal, vide proviso (a) to section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973. There is no indication in the memo of appeal that appellant ever resorted to filing of departmental appeal.
5. However, it was disclosed by the learned counsel for the appellant, in course of his arguments that appellant had preferred the departmental appeal to the Chief Minister. As stated above he also produced the appeal along with enclosures in original. These documents were not produced at the time of presentation of the present appeal. Therefore the belated production was afterthought.
6. Although the said documents seemed to have been received by the Dispatch Clerk of High Court on 1-12-1987, yet there is no indication that the same were forwarded to the Chief Minister. In any case the appeal did not lie to the Chief Minister. As provided in Schedule II of the High Court Rules appeal was to be preferred to a Bench of two Judges nominated by the Chief Justice, since the impugned order was passed by Single Judge and the same was endorsed by the Chief Justice. But no such appeal was filed, Thus, even the mandatory requirement of law of exhausting departmental remedy was not complied with before filing the present appeal.
7. ' For above reasons the appeal is dismissed in limine.