' IHSANUL HAQ CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).--The relevant facts for the decision of the present appeal are that the appellant and the respondent No, 1 are serving as Assistant Horticulturist, Horticulture Section (Tissue Circle), Ayub Agricultural Research Institute, Faisalabad. The grievance of the appellant is that the appellant was in the Horticulture Group while the respondent No, 1 was in Plant Breeding and Genetic Group before he was illegally inducted into and promoted as Assistant Horticulturist vide Notification, dated 29-7-1985.
' This appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 is directed against the order of respondent No, 2, and was filed on 15-1-1986. The same was admitted to regular hearing on 8-5- 1986. The respondents have contested the same, filed the written objections and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondent No, 1 and learned District Attorney for the respondent No, 2 and gone through the file of the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal has argued: #TBS (i)
(ii) #TBE That the respondent No, 1 was appointed on 11-1-1969 and was serving in the Plant Breeding and Genetic Group while the appellant was appointed on 22-12-1953 and was in the Horticulture Group. The learned counsel from this has raised following conclusions:- that the appellant is senior, that respondent No, 1 should not have been shifted to his Group.
Secondly, it was argued that the staff of the Institute was divided into various Groups and each Group has an independent entity and officials of one Group cannot be transferred to the other. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No, 1 has argued that the service has been split into Groups for convenience purpose and the Groups cannot be termed as independent entities and considered different service from each other. The learned counsel for the respondent No, 1 in support of his contention has referred to PLD 1981 SC 612.
4. In reply to the first argument, it is-submitted that appellant remained in Behrain from 1-11-1967 to 31-10-1975 and from 1-11-1975 to 7-8-1984, he was absent from duty, and as a result of this unauthorized absence he was reduced in rank from Assistant Horticulturist to that of Research Officer in 1984. However, the appellant was again promoted on 6-5-1986 whereas the respondent No, 1 was officiating as Assistant Research ' Officer from 3-9-1985 and his appointment was made regular with effect from 6-5-1986, therefore, the appellant is not senior to the respondent No, 1.
5. The learned District Attorney has argued that the appeal is misconceived and time-barred. In this behalf he has referred to notification dated 29-7-1985 and concluded that this notification was issued in pursuance of the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee arrived at in its meetings held on 28-11-1982 and 21-5-1985. The D.P.C. In its meeting dated 28-11-1982 held that the respondent No, 1 having specialized in the Horticulture, therefore, his seniority should be considered in that Group. Then the Committee in its meeting held on 21-5-1985 made the following observations:-- "Earlier decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting dated 28-11-1982 should have been implemented long ago. This should be done within a month."
6. It is relevant to mention here that this Committee was headed by Secretary Agriculture. It is maintained by the learned District Attorney that the D.P.C. Was fully competent to make transfer from one Group to another in view of the provisions of rule 9(1) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, and which reads as under:-- "9(1) Appointments by promotions or transfer in posts in various grades shall be made on the recommendations of the appropriate Committee or Board."
7. It is submitted that the respondent No, 1 was qualified in Horticulture, therefore, like others it was decided to consider him for promotion in the field of his specialization. The learned District Attorney also adopted the argument of the learned respondent No, 1 on the point and raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the appeal is time-barred. The learned District Attorney from the above facts, inferred that if the appellant had any grievance, which is against the order, dated 28-11-1982 of D.P.C. Which he never challenged. Even the last order of the D.P.C. Dated 21-5-1985, on the basis of which the so-called impugned notification was issued, remained unchallenged. Above all the notification of the promotion of the respondent No, 1 is dated 29-7-1985 whereas the appeal in this Tribunal was filed on 15-1-1986, which is hopelessly time-barred. The appellant has failed to render any justification. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant filed departmental appeal against this order on 22-9-1985 and since that remained undecided for 90 days, therefore, he has come within next 30 days to this Tribunal.
8. We have considered the arguments of the parties on the point of limitation. We do not find any merit in the preliminary objection raised by the learned District Attorney as to the limitation. The recommendations made by D.P.C. Cannot be made subject-matter of the appeal. It is only the 'final order', which can be assailed in appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act. The same having been challenged, the appeal is within time.
9. Now we take up the merits. We have given anxious considerations to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. The argument of the learned counsel that the respondent No, 1 did not belong to Horticulture Group, therefore, could not have been considered for seniority purpose in the Horticulture Group, is without any merit. The Department rightly decided to consider the officers in the Group in the subject which they had specialized. Since the respondent No, 1 had specialized in Horticulture Group, therefore, his promotion in Plant Breeding and Genetic Group was deferred and it was decided to consider him in the Horticulture Group. These Groups are only for the purpose of convenience and not independent entity or cadre or service. We are fortified in our view by the latest announcement in case of Inayat Ali and others v. Manzoor Ullah and others reported as 1987 S CM R 407. It is relevant to mention here that it was a case under West Pakistan Agriculture Service Research Wing (Class II) Rules, 1963, and the relevant portion of the judgment reads a under:- "Against a reference to the remarks "temporarily adjusted in Agriculture. Technologist group-- seniority in Agricultural Chemistry Group (disputed)" appearing in the notification dated 12th of August, 1972, will not, in any way, affect his regular appointment to the post as the work `group' is not indicative of any cadre, grade or service, but only the redesigned posts group-wise in the same grade."
10. We have noted from the comments that the respondent No, 1 is specialist in Horticulture, therefore, rightly shifted to Group of his specialization otherwise he would have been a misfit and it would have resulted in wastage o his qualifications and capabilities. Therefore, there is no force in the arguments o the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent was illegally inducted the Horticulture cadre. The appellant being absent from the duty at the relevan time and having been proceeded against departmentally and as a result of whic he was reduced in rank, therefore, neither he can impugn the decision taken b the Departmental Promotion Committee in 1982 nor he can compete with the respondent No, 1 who was officiating as Assistant Research Officer with effect from 3-9-1985. Therefore, the respondent No, 1 was rightly promoted as officiating Assistant Research Officer which appointment was made regular w,e,f, 6-5-1986.
11. The appellant having not served in the Department from 1-11-1967 to 7-8-1984 was rightly not considered by the Department for promotion as officiating Assistant Research Officer. He should thank his stars that the Department forgot about his past and promoted him just in a span of less than two years of his demotion, which was ordered on account of his serious dereliction of duty as a result of which he was liable to be dismissed from service.
12. The upshot of this discussion is that we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.