' SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH (CHAIRMAN).--Appellant Mr. Khawaja Saeed Perwaiz, while serving as an Assistant Accounts Officer (Grade-17) in the office of the Comptroller, N.-W.F.P., was transferred to the Federal Secretariat to serve on deputation as an Assistant Director (Grade-17) in the National Security Council Division, with effect from 6-8-1970. On abolition of the National Security Council Division, he was transferred to the Intelligence Bureau as Officer on Special Duty in March, 1973. He was absorbed in the Intelligence Bureau as an Assistant Director (Grade-17) with effect from 1-1- 1974, vide notification dated 28-6-1975. By subsequent notification dated 9-7-1975, issued by the Intelligence Bureau, the appellant was promoted in substantive capacity as Assistant Director (Grade 18) with effect from 1-1-1974. His case was revised by Review Board under the provisions of section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Review Board held that his promotion as Assistant Director in Grade-18 was irregular and his reversion to Grade-17 was recommended. The case was submitted to the President. The President was pleased to order that the case may be examined by the Central Selection Board/Departmental Promotion Committee. Accordingly, his case was examined by a Departmental Promotion Committee in the Intelligence Bureau in 1981. The Committee recommended that the appellant may be absorbed in the Intelligence Bureau on permanent basis with effect from 1-1-1974 as a Deputy Assistant Director and he should rank junior to all the Deputy Assistant Directors who were confirmed on or before that date. The President was pleased to approve the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee.
Accordingly, a notification dated 6-3-1983 was issued under the provisions of section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. He made representation against notification. Another notification dated 29- 4-1984 was issued. The appellant made representation against that notification. His representation was rejected and he was informed accordingly vide Memorandum dated 13-3-1985. He filed this appeal on 10-4-1985 calling in question the notification dated 29-4-1984.
2. The appeal is directed against the Secretary, Establishment Division and the Director, Intelligence Bureau, Government of Pakistan. Two more respondents, namely Khurshid Alam and Sardar Khan Mulk also have been impleaded as to challenge their seniority. The Government functionaries have opposed the appeal. Sardar Khan Mulk also has opposed the appeal. They have filed written objections. Their objections in nut-shell are that the appointment of the appellant in the Intelligence Bureau was irregular and the case of the employment was reviewed by a Review Board under ,the provisions of section 12- A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and his employment in the Bureau was regularized on the basis of the recommendations made by the Review Board and also by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Legal objections also have been taken that the appeal is time-barred and it is also hit by sub-clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, and is also bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties and misjoinder of causes of action etc.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the events pertaining to the absorption of the appellant in the Intelligence Bureau referred to above and urged that there was no irregularity in his employment and absorption in the Bureau and his case was not required to be reviewed under the provisions of section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. He has further urged that the appellant's case stood settled by the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee in pursuance of the direction of the President reflected in Memorandum dated 12-12-1981 and the case could not be re-opened at the level of the Establishment Division and a decision taken contrary to the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, who are the Government functionaries has contended that the appellant's entry into the Intelligence Bureau was against the rules and his appointment was reviewed under the provisions of section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the final decision was notified in the impugned notification dated 29-4-1984. According to him, the decision had the approval of the President. The respondent No, 4 also adopted the arguments made by the learned counsel for the Government.
4. The appellant was employed in the office of the Comptroller, N.-W.F.P. He was taken on deputation as an Assistant Director (Grade-17) in the National Security Council Division with effect from 6-8-1970. On abolition of the National Security Council Division in March, 1973, he was transferred to the Intelligence Bureau. His regular absorption in the Intelligence Bureau and his promotion etc. Are subsequent events. By virtue of section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, his appointment to and promotion in the Intelligence Bureau was reviewed. His case was referred for review to a Review Board which recommended that he should revert to Grade-17. A summary was submitted to the President who was pleased to order that his case may be referred to the Central Selection Board/Departmental Promotion Committee and the case may be decided in the light of the recommendations by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The Committee made the following recommendations-- "The Committee observed that the services of Kh. Saeed Parwaiz had been placed at the disposal of the Intelligence Bureau on the abolition of the National Security Council Division. Consequently, he was first appointed as an O.S.D. (Grade-17) with effect from April 3, 1973, and then as Deputy Assistant Director (Grade-17) in which capacity he was absorbed permanently with effect from January 1, 1974, without his case having been placed before the D.P.C. (Senior). That being the position, he should have counted his seniority below the junior most Deputy Assistant Director already confirmed on or before that date (January 1, 1974). However, the case was presented in such a way in 1975 that he was promoted as an Assistant Director substantively from that very date (January 1, 1974) without considering the Departmental Deputy Assistant Directors senior to him.
The Committee, therefore, recommended that Kh. Saecd Parwaiz be absorbed in the Intelligence Bureau on a permanent basis, with effect from January 1, 1974 as a Deputy Assistant Director; that he should rank junior to all the Deputy Assistant Directors who were confirmed on or before that date; and that since all of them were now working against Grade-18 posts, the same inter se seniority should determine their position in the present grade."
' The case was submitted to the President again under Summary dated 5-3-1984. The President was pleased to approve the recommendation made in paragraph 5 of the Summary, reproduced below:- "The recommendations of the D.P.C. (Senior) can be given effect by taking the following actions:--
(a) Khawaja Saeed Perwaiz should be reverted under section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 to the post of Deputy Assistant Director with effect from 1-1-1974; He should be promoted as Assistant Director (BPS-18) w,e,f, 10-1-1979, the date on which his immediate senior was so promoted; The pay and allowances drawn by him in BPS-18 from 1-1-1974 to 9-1-1979 in excess of pay and allowances admissible to him in BPS-17 may be written off as the same have been drawn by him in good faith."
' Pursuant to the approval of the President, the impugned notification dated 29-4-1984 was issued as under:-- NOTIFICATION ' No, 7/C/73-(60),III.--In exercise of the powers vested in him by section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, the President has been pleased to direct-- ' that Khawaja Saeed Parwaiz is reverted to the post of Deputy Assistant Director in the Intelligence Bureau with effect from 1-1-1974;
(ii) that Khawaja Saeed Parwaiz is promoted as Assistant Director in the Intelligence Bureau with effect from 10-1-1979, the date from which his immediate senior was so promoted; and
(iii) that the pay and allowances drawn by Khawaja Saeed Parwaiz in NPS/RNPS-18 from 1-1-1974 to 9-1-1979 in excess of pay and allowances admissible to him in NPS/RNPS-17 are written off.
(2) This issues on the basis of the orders contained in the Establishment Division Office Memorandum No, 13(3)/80-AI)/CP.I, dated April 9, 1984.
(3) The following notifications, already issued on the subject, stand superseded/modified, accordingly: ' No,7/C/73-(60), dated 7-1-1974)
' No, 1/12/75-IB, dated 28-6-1975)
' No, 1/12/75-IB, dated 9-7-1975) To he superseded.
' No, 7/C/73460)-111, dated 6-3-1983)
' No 7/C/73-(60), dated 22-11-1976)
' No, 7/C/73-(60), dated 10-12-1976)
' No, 7/C/73-(60), dated 25-2-1977) To be modified.
'No, 7/C/73-(60), dated 1-8-1977)
' No, 7/C/73-(60), dated 26-9-1977)
Sd/- G. Asghar Malik, Deputy Director (Admn.)"
5. It would appear that it was observed during the course of review by a Review Board as well as by the Departmental Promotion Committee of the case of entry of the appellant in the Intelligence Bureau that his absorption in the Bureau and subsequent promotion to Grade-18 were irregular and it was recommended that he may he reverted. The President was pleased to accept the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee and the recommendations made by the Establishment Division reflected in the impugned notification dated 29-4-1984 were approved. The recommendation by the Departmental Promotion Committee given effect to under the impugned notification is unexceptionable as it was passed by the competent authority and there did not seem any element of mala fides behind it. Reference may be made to the case of Federation of Pakistan v. Ghulam Akbar Bhutto, reported in 1988 SCMR at page 1199 on the scope of challenge to the orders passed under the provisions of section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973.
The question of seniority of the appellant has to be determined on the basis of the impugned notification. The appellant may contest the question of his seniority before the relevant authorities if he has any case to contest. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are not attracted in view of the facts stated above and the conclusions drawn therefrom. The appeal, therefore, merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed.