' MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 25-4-1988 passed by respondent No, 1 being appellate authority who dismissed his appeal dated 14-2-1988 against the order of respondent No, 2 dated 18-1-1988.
' The averments of the appeal would show that the appellant as well as respondent No, 3 are the residents of Tehsil Kulachi, District D.I. Khan. A list of candidates for the appointment against Grades 1 and 2 is maintained at Kulachi by the office working under respondent No, 2 and according to the appellant the persons from the list were appointed as and when a post fell vacant from the said list. However, in the case of the appellant when a vacancy arose, he was ignored and he being senior was superseded by respondent No,
3. The act of the respondent was void, illegal, mala fide, devoid of principles of equity and justice and ineffective upon his rights.
' Respondents submitted the written reply, denying the allegations of the appellant on the grounds that the list maintained in the office of Tehsildar Kulachi does not confer any right on the appellant to seek appointment to any post. He has got no cause of action. Respondent No, 2 was the competent authority to appoint any person on the post in Grades 1 and 2. The impugned order was defended by all the respondents being legal, proper and within their jurisdiction.
' Record perused and the arguments heard.
' In our view, the appeal is not competent because section 2(b) defines a civil servant as under:-
(b) "civil servant" means a person who is a member of a civil service of the Province, or who holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Province".
Similarly rules known as N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1975 which have been repealed by Rules, 1989 would clearly maintain that appointing Authority in the case of Grades 1 and 2 officials falling in the office of respondent No, 2 is respondent No,2 himself.
He has the exclusive jurisdiction to appoint any suitable person to the post fallen vacant in Grades 1 and 2. By inserting the name of the appellant in the list kept in the office of Tehsildar Kulachi it would not give any locus stand to the appellant to claim his appointment in preference to respondent No,
3. This does not confer any right upon him. Such a list in no circumstance will supersede the rules, framed by the Government. This list has got no statutory force. Viewed from every angle, the appeal fails which is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost and file be consigned to the record room.