1. Ghulam Shabbir, Head Clerk has filed this appeal under section 4 of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 impleading Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Labour Department, Lahore; Director, Manpower and Training, Punjab, Lahore and Inam-ul-Haque, Head Clerk, Government Vocational Institute for Boys, sheikhupura as respondents. Through this appeal appellant has prayed that orders declaring the respondent No, 3 senior to the appellant and the order of respondent No,1 dated 6-7-1987 rejecting his departmental appeal be set aside and appellant's name be ordered to be fixed prior to the respondent No,3, in the seniority list at serial No,1.
2. Salient features of this appeal preferably are that the appellant was appointed Junior Clerk in Government Poly Technic Institute,'Multan vide order dated 20-7-1970. The appellant was selected on merits as Senior Clerk by Selection Committee constituted for the selection of this post vide order dated 17-9-1975. Appellant was confirmed as senior clerk on 26-10-1976. Appellant was further promoted as Head Clerk on 9-10-1978 and is presently working on this post. On the other hand respondent No, 3 joined the Government Vocational Institute (for Boys) Bahawalpur w,e,f, 1-5- 1964 and was arrested in criminal case on 13-7-1972. Finally he was acquitted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 30-9-1980 with full benefits in service during his absence. A post of Senior Clerk occurred in the aforesaid institution and the appointment of appellant was made against that post. On the receipt of decision of Supreme Court of Pakistan respondent No, 3 applied to the competent authority who granted pro forma promotion to him when the vacancy was available i,e, 17-9-1975 as Senior Clerk and Head Clerk on 9-10-1978 respectively. Consequently the appellant's name was placed at Sr.No,2 in the final seniority list after entertaining and accepting objections.
3. The appellant preferred, an appeal against the final seniority list before respondent No,1 which was rejected on 6-7-1987. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with the assistance of departmental representative.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is senior most and shown as such in the provisional seniority list, but in final seniority list respondent No,2 illegally placed the respondent No,3 as senior to the appellant. Conversely learned District Attorney has opposed the appeal and submitted that order declaring the respondent No,3 senior to the appellant and the order of respondent No,1 rejecting the departmental appeal of the appellant are lawful and in the light of comments/report furnished by the respondents the same be allowed to stand.
6. ' I have given my anxious thought to the submisssions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and find that the post of senior clerk was promotion post and the same was advertised by the Principal Government Vocational Institute (for Boys), Bahawalpur due to the non-availability of the senior most junior clerk for the promotion. Respondent No,3 was the senior most junior clerk working in the institute w,e,f, 1-5-1964 was arrested in criminal case on 13-7-1972. Due to the arrest he could not apply for the post of senior clerk. He was given pro forma promotion by the competent authority as senior clerk and Head Clerk after his acquittal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in accordance with rules and the instructions on the subject. As respondent No,3 is promote and appellant is direct appointee, therefore, respondent No,3 is senior t appellant under Rule 8 (2) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. So the name of respondent No,3 was rightly placed at serial No,1 in the seniority list. As such the order declaring respondent No,3 senior to the appellant and order dated 6-7-1987 of respondent No,1 rejecting the appellant's departmental appeal being lawful are allowed to stand. Accordingly the appellant's appeal fails with no order as to costs.