' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--These are two petitions for special leave to appeal from the judgment, dated 5-11-1984 of the Punjab Service Tribunal.
2. The petitioners appeared in the competitive examination held for recruitment to the Provincial Civil Service (E.B) and Section Officers in 1967. Initially, as a result of the examination, 50 posts in the Provincial Civil Service (Executive Branch) were to be filled but before the examination could conclude the number of posts was reduced to 30. The petitioners qualified in the examination but on account of the reduction in the posts they could not be appointed to the said Service. They were then offered appointments as Section Officers which they accepted.
3. Apparently, the petitioners while serving as Section Officers, started making representations to the Government that they too should be appointed to the Provincial Service (E.B.) but without any success. In 1972, the Provincial Government sent a requisition to the Public Service Commission for filling 13 vacancies by competitive examination. The petitioners once again represented that they should be considered for appointment against these vacancies. The Government consulted the Public Service Commission and its Law Department and received advice to the effect that the representationists have no legal claim for appointment to the Provincial Civil Service (E.B) but the Government could, as a matter of grace, appoint to the Service, provided that their absorption into that service did not place in jeopardy the service right (seniority etc.) of persons already recruited through the subsequent competitive examinations. After considering this advice, the Government made a conditional offer to the petitioners for absorption in the Service provided they were prepared to accept seniority below the officers recruited in 1973. The petitioners accepted the offer together with the condition and accordingly they were appointed to the Service.
4. After becoming members of the Service, they started claiming that they should be given seniority alongwith the other officers appointed in 1967. Their claim was rejected by the Government and an offer was made to them that they could, if they so desired, revert to the cadre of Section Officers. They did not accept the offer. However, they filed appeals before the Service Tribunal to seek seniority alongwith the batch of 1967. Their appeals were dismissed by the learned Tribunal. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
5. The petitioners base their claim on rule 9(1)(a) of the Provincial Civil service (Executive Branch)
Rules, 1964 which states that the seniority of persons appointed by initial recruitment will be determined by the Public Service Commission provided that persons selected for the service in an earlier selection shall rank senior to the persons selected in a later selection. As regard the condition which was imposed at the time of their appointment that they would not claim seniority, their case is that the seniority is required to be determined by statutory rules and any undertaking given by them in derogation of their statutory right is not binding on them.
6. It is difficult to accept the contention that they should be treated as having been selected for appointment alongwith the officers of 1967 batch within the meaning of Rule 9(1)(a), ibid. No doubt, they had qualified in competitive examination in 1967 but on account of lack of vacancies they were not selected for appointment and were instead given jobs as Section Officers. Their absorption in the Provincial Civil Service took place in 1973 when a conditional offer was made to them. Prior to that offer they could hardly be taken to have been selected for appointment to the said Service. Therefore, their claim that by operation of Rule 9(1)(a) they were entitled to seniority alongwith the officers of 1967 batch, is without any foundation. These petitions are without any merit and are hereby dismissed.