JUDGEMENTJustice (RTD) Munawar Ali Khan (Chairman)-This judgement will dispose of sue appeals : namely Apprtd No.2/1982 filed by Aijaz Hussain Kazi, Appeal No.3/1982 filed by Ghulam Sarwar Khero, Appeal No.4/1982 filed by Muhammad Yousuf Bhatti, Appeal No.5/1982 filed by Qadir Bux Shaikh, Appeal No.39/1982 filed by Syed Mahfooz Ali and Appeal No.40/1982 filed by Muhammad Yousuf Khan. All these appeals have arisen from the seniority list of Section Officers of Provincial Secretariat of Government of Sind, issued on 12.9.1981. The appellants' grievances is that they have not been assigned due place in the said seniority list. From the appellants, M/s. Syed Mahfooz Ali and Muhammad Yousuf Khan entered the cadre of Section Officers as promotees whereas the remaining for appellants were appointed in the said cadre by direct recruitment.
2. The case of direct recruits/appellants is more or less identical. Consequent upon their selection by the Public Service Commission, they were inducted in the posts of Section Officers by initial recruitment. The appellants Muhammad Yousaf Bhutti and Qadir Bux Shaikh assumed their office as Section Officers on 10.7.1972 and appellants Aijaz Hussain Kazi and Ghulam Sarwar Khero who were selected in the competitive examination held by Sind/Baluchistan Public Service Commission in 1972, were appointed as Section Officers by S&GAD's Notification No.5.O.V(S&GAD)-I-8/73, dated 6.11.1973. However by two notifications of same No.5&A (S&GAD)- 2(3)/71, dated 23.9.1972 and 7.11.1972 some Superintendents of defunct Government of West Pakistan and Sind Secretariat were promoted as Section Officers purely on temporary and adhoc basis until the availability of direct recruits. Their promotion was subsequently regularized by notification No.5.O.V(S&GAD) 2-3/71, dated 83.1974 retrospectively from the dates mentioned against their names in the said notification. The contention of the appellants was that such regularization of the respondents adhoc promotions was in contravention of the law and rules and hence illegal and inoperative and therefore they could not be shown as senior to them in the impugned seniority list. On the basis of this plea the appellant Aijaz Hussain claimed to be senior to respondents No.2 to 40 mentioned in the memo of his appeal. Similarly appellant Ghulam Sarwar Khero claimed seniority over respondents No.2 to 40. Again appellant Muhammad Yousuf Bhatti claimed to be placed above respondents No.2 to 22 and appellant Qadir Bux claimed to be shown senior to respondents No.2 to
27. Accordingly being aggrieved by the impugned seniority list they preferred departmental appeals to the Chief Minister/MLA Zone 'C' and as no decision was taken by the said appellate authority within 90 days, they have come in the present appeals.
3. The case of promotee/appellant, Syed Mahfooz Ali is that he joined Government Service as senior scale stenographer on 6.11.1954 and was promoted as Superintendent on 2.4.1974. Subsequently by notification No.5.O.X(S&GAD)l-8/83, dated 27.9.1975 he along with the 11 other persons, was promoted as Section Officer on regular basis though temporarily until availability of direct recruits.
Despite this he was shown at S.No.125, as junior to the respondents (mentioned in the memo of his appeal) in the provisional seniority list of Section Officer issued on 20.1.1981. He challaned the said seniority list but he was neither heard nor was any order was passed on his representation/objectiOns. UItimately final seniority list was issued on 12.9.1981 in which his name was wrongly placed at S.No.97, on basis of regularization of his promotion on 17.4.1978, though he was actually promoted on regular basis on 27.9.1975 as stated above. Accordingly the appellant preferred departmental appeal but the same was rejected vide letter dated 17.4.1982 communicated to him by respondent No.2. The appellant therefore filed the present appeal claiming seniority over respondents No.3 to 76.
4. The case of the appellant Muhammad Yousuf Khan is that he was promoted from his substantive post of Superintendent to that of Section Officer on 27.3.1974. Subsequent to his promotion several persons were appointed as Section Officers by direct recruitment. Though they were junior to him, they have been placed above the appellant in the impugned seniority list. The appellant claims to be placed at serial No.45 instead of serial No.73 in the said seniority list. As such he preferred departmental Appeal on 8.10.1981 but the same was rejected. He was informed about the rejection of his appeal by the order N0.S.O.X (S&GAD)3-(313)/79, dated 17.4.1982. Thereafter he has filed the present appeal.
5. The last two appeals (Appeal No.39/1982 and appeal No.40/1982) were allowed by the Services Tribunal mainly on some concessions made by the then Assistant Advocate General vide two separate judgments dated 21st March, 1983 and 22nd March, 1983 respectively. The said judgements were however challaned in Supreme Court which by its judgment dated 3rd September, 1985 disposed both the appeals by consent and remanded the cases back to the Service Tribunal for decision on merits.6. We heard the arguments of the parties and their counsel at great length. We also minutely examined the documents produced in all the appeals.
7. It would appear that the appellants are not satisfied with the seniority position assigned to them in the impuged seniority list. In order to rcslovc their dispute with regard to seniority it would be pertinent to refer to the relevant law and rules. No doubt the impugned seniority list published on 12th September, 1981 was drawn up and issued in accordance with the Sind Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Seniority Rules, 1975), These rules came into force with effect from 2nd October, 1975. Rule 10 of the Seniority Rules 1975, which has a great bearing on the appellant's cases, is couched in the following words;
(1) Subject to the provision of rule 11, the seniority of a civil servant shall be reckoned from the dale of his regular appointment. (2) No appointment made on adhoc basis shall be regularized retrospectively."
8. Keeping in view the requirements of the above rule, correct seniority position to which the appellants as well as respondents would be entitled in the cadre of section officers, can only be determined by reference to the date of their regular appointment to the said cadre. In other words it has to be seen on what dates they entered the cadre by way of regular appointment. "Regular appointment" has been mentioned in contradistinction of "Adhoc Appointment" in the Sind Civil Servants Act 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). It is applicable to the parties in as much as it regulates their terms and conditions of service. As defined in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the said Act, "Adhoc appointment" means an appointment made otherwise than in accordance with the prescribed method of recruitment. Conversely if an appointment is made in accordance with the prescribed method, it would obviously become a regular appointment.
9. The next question that arises for our consideration is as to what was the prescribed method of recruitment when the appellants as well as respondents entered the Section Officerss' cadre and whether that method was followed in their appointments. So far direct recruit/appellants are concerned, they are all selectees of the Public Service Commission. At the time of their selection as well as their induction in the posts of Section Officers, the said Act or the rules framed thereunder had not come into force but West Pakistan Secretariat (Section Officers) Service Rules 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 1962-Rules) still occupied the field. Rule 5(1) of these rules which is relevant here reads as under; "5. Method of recruitment -(1) Recruitment to the sevivc shall be made as follows.
(a) Fifty percent of the v ancics shall be filled by initial recruitment on basis of the resuIt of the competitive examination held by the Commission.
(b) The remaining fifty percent of the vacancies shall be filled by selection on merit with due regard to seniority from among the Superintendents of the West Pakistan Secretariat (Ministerial)
Service, or if no such Superintendents are considered suitable for appointment to the service from among Assistant of the West Pakistan Secretariat (Ministerial) Service."
10. It is clear from the above rule that prescribed method of recruitment in case of initial appointment was the resuIt of competitive examination held by the Public Service Commission.
Since that method was followed in case of Direct recruits/appcllanls, their appointment to the post of Section Officers was regular appointment. Consequently their seniority in the Section Officers cadre was to be reckoned from the dates of their initial appointment. The argument that they should count their seniority from the date of their confirmation in the said posts was not only mis- conceivcd but also erroneous as it was not based on any provision of law or rules. On the contrary sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the said Act provides that "seniority on initial appointment to a service, grade or post shall be determined as may be prescribed". As pointed out above, rule 10 of Seniority Rules 1975 prescribes that seniority of a civil servant is to be reckoned from the dale of his regular appointment. The period of probation that procedcs the confirmation of a civil servant is a part of his regular service becuasc he is invariably confirmed right from the date of his appointment. In any case the period of probation does not fall within the definition of adhoc appointment so that it should be excluded for determining the dale of his regular appointment having arrived at this conclusion we hold that the appellants Aijaz Hussain Kazi and Ghulam Sarwar Khero entered the cadre of Section Officers on 6th November, 1973 and appellants Muhammad Yousuf Bhatti and Kadir Bux Shaikh entered the said cadre on 10th July, 1972 by way of regular appointment and as such their seniority in the Section Officers' cadre would be reckoned from the said dales. All these section Officers who were appointed after the above dales would be junior to the said appellants.11. The above for appellants have claimed to be senior to the promotee/respondents as mentioned by them in their respective memos of appeals. Most of the said respondents have been dropped by the appellants, as they have either retired, died or left the cadre otherwise, leaving respondents' Aziz Rehman, Ansar Ahmad Khan, Hidayatullah Memon,M.A.Khan, Habib Ahmad, SAbbas Raza Zaidi, Mushtaq Ahmad Afridi Mirza Anwar Baig, Rafiquddin Momin and Abdul Aziz who are said to be still in service. The aforesaid respondents were promoted as section officers by two Nofifications; one dated 23.9.1972 and another dated 7th November, 1972. However the names of Aziz Rahman and Abbas Raza Zaidi do not transpire in these notifications but it is not denied that like other respondents they too were promoted on adhoc basis and subsequently their promotion was regularized retrospectively. On perusal of the above notifications it would appear that promotions mentioned therein were made purely on temporary and adhoc basis pending the finalization of their cases of promotions as Superintendents. It was further made clear in the said notifications that the promotees would not claim seniority over their seniors who were not considered for appointment earlier or might be appointed thereafter and that their promotions were only a stop-gap- arrangement and they were liable to be reverted to their own substantive rank on determination of seniority or when the direct recruits or officers of other services were available for appointment as Section Officers. Their promotions were however, regularised by subsequent notification No.5.O.V(S&GAD)-2-3/71, dated 8th March, 1974 retrospectively from the dates mentioned against their names.12. The appellants and their learned counsel attacked the regularization of adhoc promotions of the aforesaid respondents mainly on two grounds; first, that retrospective regularization of adhoc appointments was not permissible under the rules and second, that the said respondents were admittedly promoted against the posts reserved for direct recruits, and as such their promotions could not be regularized in the quota of direct recruits. In support of their arguments, they placed reliance on Supreme Court authority reported as Federation of Pakistan VsAzam Ali and others (1985 S.C.M.R.
386). On the other hand it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that when regularization of respondents' promotions was made, the Sind Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer)
Rules 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 1974-Rules) as well as Seniority Rules 1975 were nowhere in sight. Further submission on their behalf was that there was no bar on retrospective regularization of adhoc appointment under the 1962- Rules which were actually in force at the time of respondents' adhoc promotions and the regularization thereof. It was also stressed on the respondents' behalf that the regularization was made with the approval of the Chief Minister, who besides being rule-making authority, was designated as Government in the 1973-Constitution.
Accordingly in their view even if the r trospective regularization suffered from any defect, such defect stood cared. As for the argument that respondents' promotions could not be regularized in the posts reserved for the direct recruits, the respondents' reaction was that for the purpose of determining seniority such argument was untenable. In this connection reference was made to the Supreme Court authority reported as Khushi Muhammad and three others-Vs. General Manager PWR (PLD 1970 S.C. 203).13. We have given our due consideration to the arguments of both sides and have also perused the authorities relied upon by the parties. There was no controversy on the point that the aforesaid respondents were first promoted as Section Officers on adhoc basis. The bone of contention between the parties was whether their adhoc promotion could or could not be regularized retrospectively. As stated above the regularization of their promotions was made by notification dated 8th March, 1974, It is true that by that date the Seniority Rules of 1975 which were promulgated on 2.10.1975 had not come into force. Similarly 1974-Rules were enforced on 28.3.1974 i.e. 20 days after the above notification of regularization was issued. Nevertheless, the said Act had already come into being as it was published on 5th December, 1973. As provided in sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the said Act: "seniority, in the grade to which a civil servant is promoted shall take effect from the date of regular appointment to a post in that grade. " The word "regular appointment" used in this sub-section is an appointment other than" adhoc appointment" as defined in Section 2 (1) (a) of the said Act. Obviously both appointments can not be made on the one and the same date. In our opinion the intention of the sub-section (4) hereinabove appears to be that the date of regular appointment is the date on which such appointment is made or adhoc appointment is regularized. Keeping in view the definition of adhoc appointment we find that appointment made on adhoc basis can convert into regular appointment only after due compliance of the prescribed procedure. As stated above the 1974-Rules which prescribed the procedure for appointment by promotion had not been enforced by the date the respondents' regularization of adhoc promotion was made. In such a situation resort had to be made to sub- section (2) of section 26 of the said Act which reads as under."(2) Any rules, order or instructions in respect of any terms and conditions of service of Civil Servants duly made or issued by an authority, competent to make them and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall, in so far such rules, orders or instructions are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to be rules made under this Act."14. Accordingly 1962-Rules would be deemed to be alive for the purpose of regularising the adhoc promotions of the respondent. As provided in clause
(b) of sub-rule (1) of rule 5 of these Rules reproduced above, fifty precent of the vacancies shall be filled by selection on merit with due regard to seniority from among the Superintendents. For selecting suitable Superintendents (non-Gazetted post) for promotion as Section Officers (Gazetted post) consuItation with Public Service Commission was mandatory vide regulation 4(1) of the West Pakistan Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the said Regulations).As is clear from the "Summary for the Chief Minister" fleated by the then Chief Secretary on 12.11.1973, reference was actually made to the Public Service Commission in this regard. Before the final advice of the Commission could become available, the Constitution of 1973 was promulgated and under the said Constitution, a new law relating to Public Service Commissions known as Sind Public Service Commission Ordinance 1973 came into being. As no rules were framed under the latter Ordinance providing for consuItation with the Commission as regards promotion of secretariat Superintendents as Section Officers such promotions could be regularized without referring the case to the Commission. Consequently as the said Summary further shows, the regularization was made with the approval of the Chief Minister. It is clear from the Summary that the Chief Minister gave his approval on 3.4.1974. It is not understood how the notification of regularization was issued earlier on 8.3.1974. It seems to us that while signing the order of regularization, the Chief Minister put the date 3.4.1974 instead of 3.3.1974 through oversight. In these cirmstances the Summary should have been resubmitted to the Chief Minister for rectification of the date. However, the S&GAD instead issued the notification dated 8th March, 1974 based on the said approval of the Chief Minister dated 3.4.1974. Obviously the approval given on the later date can not be reflected in the notification of the earlier date. Therefore we are of the view that the date of approval was 3.3.1974 and not 3.4.1974. Accordinlgy the adhoc promotions of the respondents stood regularized on 3.3.1974.15. Of course the 1962-Rules are silent as regards the retrospective regularization of adhoc appointment. But as discussed above, in the light of different provisions of the said Act the date of regular appointment can not be the same as that of adhoc appointment. Particularly the date of "regular appointment" mentioned in the sub- section (4) of the Section 8 of the said Act, in our opinion, can not be the date other than that on which regular appointment was actually made. It is true that retrospectivity given to the respondents' regular promotions had the approval of the Chief Minister who was not only rule- making authority but also Government within the meaning of the unamended Article 129 of the Constitution of 1973. However this does not mean that the Chief Minister was armed with power even to override the Provisions of Law of Legislature. Since subsection (4) of Section 8 of the Sind Civil Servants Act 1973 which is a law of Legislature requires seniority of promotee to be reckoned from the date of regular appointment which can not be other than that on which such appoinment was made, the Chief Minister can not pass order repugnant to the said provision, giving retrospective effect to such appointment. From the above discussion we are convinced that seniority of promotee section officers would take effect from the date on which their adhoc promotions were actually regularized. As disclosed in the "Summary for the Chief Minister" referred to above, the Chief Minister approved the regularization of the respondents' adhoc promotions on 3.3.1974 (3.4.1974 obviously an oversight) and therefore their seniority in the cadre of section officers would be reckoned from the said date. As the Direct rccruit/appellants entered the said cadre on earlier date the latter would rank senior to the respondents mentioned above.16. In view of the above findings, further arguments that the respondents' promotion on adhoc basis could not be regularized in the quotaof posts reserved for direct recruits, would hardly be of any interest for the appellants as the argument now would have only academic value. Nevertheless we would like to have cursory glance at the efficacy of the argument. The explanatory note and the annextures attached therewith which have been filed by the learned Assistant Advocate General indicate the ratio in which the posfs of Section Officers were filled by promotees and direct recruits right from the break-up of One-Unit and coming into being of the new province of Sind. It would appear that on dissolution of One-Unit, 64 Section Officers were allocated to the Province of Sind. Out of them 51 Section Officers were already borne on the cadre of Section Officers and remaining 13 post holders were working on adhoc basis. Only 10 of the total number of Section Officers were direct recruits.
Again between 1.7.1970 and 23.10.1972 as many as 41 vacancies occurred from which 39 were filled by promotion on adhoc basis and the remaining 2 were given to direct recruits. It appears that 8 more vacancies occurred upto 7.11.1972 which all were filled by promotion on adhoc basis. In November, 1973, 13 selectees of Public Service Commission were appointed as Section Officers. The position of vacancies was again assessed up to 28.2.1973 and it was found that there were 60 vacancies out of which 44 were clear vacancies. In July, 1973 a list of Section 60 Officers was sent to the Public Service Commission for approval. Out of them 22 adhoc promotions including 13 adhoc Section Officers allocated from the defunct Province of West Pakistan against quota of promotees were required to be regularized. As pointed out above on coming into force of the Constitution of 1973 a new law relating to Public Service Commission was promulgated. But in absence of the rules framed under the Ordinance clarifying the Commission's powers as regards approval of promotion cases, the commission returned the aforesaid list of Section Officers without passing any order thereon. Thereafter 60 adhoc promotions of Sections Officers returned by the Commission were regularized with approval of the Chief Minister in March, 1974, as has been discussed in the foregoing paragraphs. Until such regularization, the posts of Section Officers were to be shared in the ratio of 50;50 as per 1962-Rules. But as is clear from the above appraisal, this ratio was not maintained as the Chief Minister gave his approval to regularization of adhoc promotions for in excess of the quota fixed for promotions. As provided in sub-section (1) of section 9 of the said Act, a civil servant possessing the prescribed qualification shall be eligible for promotion to a post for the time being reserved under the rules for departmental promotion. This position has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Azam Ali cited in foregoing paragraphs.17. Therefore we have to see if the Chief Minister had power to regularize Promotions in excess of the ratio fixed in the 1962-Rules. By the date the regularization of adhoc promotions was ordered by the Chief Minister, the said Act had already been promulgated, though 1974-Rules which prescribed the method of recruitment had not yet been framed. However the Chief Minister who enjoyed the power of Govt, under unamended Article 129 of 1973-Constitution was a rule-making authority and hence was within his rights to change the ratio in which the posts of SectionOfficers were to be filled by direct recruits and promotees. The change brought about with his order had the effect of amending the rules to that extent. In this connection reference may be made to the Supreme Court authority reported as Province of West Pakistan-Vs-Din Muhammad (PLD 1964 Supreme Court 21) wherein it was held;"If an "order" is made by a competent authority which has the effect of amending previous rules, which are capable of being so amended, then the efficacy of such an "order" is not diminished merely because it does not in so many words specify that it is an "order" making a rule." We must look at the substance and not merely the form of the "order".Thus the regularization of adhoc promotions with approval of the Chief Minister, in our opinion, did not violate the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 9 of the said Act and hence was perfectly inorder. But as has been held above such regualarization could not be allowed to take effect retrospectively.18. Taking up the appeal of appellant Syed Mahfooz Ali, it is found that he was promoted as Section Officer by notification No.5.O.X (S&GAD)I-8/73, dated 27th September, 1975 along with eleven others. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that since the appellant was promoted on regular basis his seniority in the Section Officers cadre was to be reckoned from the date of the said notification. The argument was based on the recital in the notification, that Departmental Promotion Committee No.1, was consuIted prior to the appellant's promotion as Section Officer. According to the learned Counsel the words "on purely temporary basis" mentioned in the notification were redundant and had no bearing on the promotion of the appellant being regular.19. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondents contended that since the promotion of the appellant was on temporary basis, his seniority could not be determined with that of permanent employees. Their further argument was that the appellant was not holding even the lower post of Superintendent on regular basis at the time of his promotion as Section Officer and therefore his promotion to higher post could not be regarded as regular promotion. In this connection our attention was drawn to the two notifications; one bearing No. E&A(S&GAD) 8(ll)/70, dated 2nd May, 1974 by which the appellant, Syed Mahfooz Ali along with 17 others were promoted to officiate as Superintendents in grade 16 purely on temporary and adhoc basis and second bearing No.5.O.X(S&GAD)-3- 264/78, dated 13th April, 1978 by which the adhoc promotions of the appellant and others as Superintendent (grade 16) was regularized. His name appears at serial No.22 in part I of the latter notification. The perusal of the above two notifications leaves us in no doubt that on 27th Septmber, 1975 on which the appellant was promoted as Section Officer obviously from the post of Superintendent he was holding the latter post only on adhoc basis. Of course there was no bar to promote the adhoc Superintendent to higher post of Section Officer, but such promotion could not be regarded as regular promotion. No doubt the Departmental Promotion Committee was consuItedfor appellant's promotion as Section Officer. But the choice of the Committee was limited to only these Superintendents who were not only duly qualified but also were eligible in all respects for promotion to the posts of Section Officers. Thus the Committee was required to consider only these Superintendents who, inter alia, were holders of the posts on regular basis. By clearing the Superintendent working on adhoc basis for regular promotion to higher post, the Committee had exceeded the power vested in it. However we fell that the Committee was perhaps conscious of the appellant's status at the time of clearing him for promotion for the post of Section Officer. That is why he was cleared by the Committee for purely temporary promotion. In any case since the appellant's promotion even to the lower post of Superintendent was regularised much later on 13th April, 1978, it was not possible to hold his promotion to higher post as Section Officer made about three years earlier on 27th September, 1975 as regular promotion. We were not shown any separate notification issued subsequently to the appellant's regular promotion as Superintendent notified in April, 1978, whereby the appellant's promotion as Section Officer was regularized against substative post. Nevertheless he was shown in the impugned seniority list to have entered the cadre of section officers with effect from 17th April, 1978, As stated above, the appellant's promotion to the post of Superintendent was regularized on 13.4.1978. We have already held that his promotion to the post of Section Officer prior to that date could not be made on regular basis, Accordingly since fresh notification was not issued with regard to his promotion to the post of Section Officer after regularization of his promotion as Superintendent we hold that he stood promoted on regular basis as Section Officer immediately on regularization of his promotion to the lower post of Superintendent. This is because he was already approved by the Departmental Promotion Committee and as such there was no need to refer his case to the said Committee again after regularization of his promotion as Superintendent. Consequently the date of his entry in the Section Officer's cadre would be 13th April, 1978 and not 17.4.1978.20. The only argument for showing appellant's entry in the said cadre on 17.4.1978 was that the promotion of'appellant's colleague to the posts of Section Officers was regularized by notification No.5.O.X(S&GAD) 3- 237/77, dated 17.4.1978 but some how due to oversight the appellant's name was not included in the said notification. We have perused the notification dated 17.4.1978 carefully, but we find that this notification does not include any of the appellant's eleven colleagues who were promoted with him by notification dated 27.9.1975. Therefore the question of omission of the appellant's name from the said notification did not arise. Even otherwise if the omission was due to oversight it was necessary to issue written clarification. It has obviously not been issued. In absence of such corrigendum we can not agree that the appellant's date of entry in the section officer's cadre was 17.4.1978.
Consequently as has been held above the seniority of the appellant in the Section Officer's cadre became effective from 13.4.1978. According to the appellant's own schedule attached to his memo of appeal all direct recruits appointed as Section Officers were admittedly appointed before the above date of regularization of his promotion as Section Officer, and as such they would all rank senior to him. So far promotee- Section Officers are concerned, these whose regular appointment to the posts of Section Officer took effect subsequent to the above date (13.4.1978) of regular appointment of appellant to the said post, would have to be shown junior to him in the impugned Seniority list.21. Lastly we come to the case of appellant Muhammad Yousuf Khan who, in view of his pending superannuation in October, 1988, has apparently lost interest in the resuIt of his appeal.
Irrespective of what his feelings are we must examine the merits of his case and pronounce our verdict as in other connected cases. His grievance is also against the same seniority list of Section Officers which was published on 12th September, 1981. As is clear from the memo of his appeal his own admissions are; firstly that he was promoted to the post of Section Officer on 27.3.1974 (as per order filed by him as Annexure 'B') on purely temporary and adhoc basis pending finalization of the case of promotion of Superintendents and secondly that the promotion of the appellant was notified on regular basis with effect from 17.4.1978. This is borne out by the two notifications available on record, one bearing No.5.O.V(S&GAD)-2(3)/71, dated 27th March, 1974 and second bearing No.5.O.X(S&GAD)3-237/77, dated 17th April, 1978. In view of our findings in other connected appeals as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, the seniority of the appellant in the Section Officers' cadre would be reckoned from 17th April, 1978, the date of his regular appointment to the said cadre, Accordingly all the Section Officers appointed by direct recruitment in the year, 1975,1976 and 1977 would rank Senior to him. Even the promotee Section Offiers if any, whose date of entry on regular basis in the said cadre was earlier than 17th April, 1978 would be treated as senior to the appellant.23. As a resuIt of above discussion the appeals of Direct Recruit appellants namely Aijaz Hussain Qazi, Ghulam Sarwar Khero, Muhammad Yousuf Bhatti and Qadir Bux Shaikh are allowed with no order as to costs. As for the promotee appellant Syed Mahfooz Ali his seniority in the section officers cadre would be reckoned with effect from the 13th April, 1978 and not from 17th April, 1978 as mentioned in the impugned seniority list. Subject to this correction to be made in the said list his appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Similarly the appeal of promotee appellant Muhammad Yousuf Khan is also dismissed with no order as to costs.Given under our hands and the Seal of this Tribunal on this 31st day of August, 1988 at Karachi.