1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Director (Inspection), Chemical (Technical) in the Central Government on temporary basis. His period of probation was six months. He was con--firmed in his post on the 1st November 1965. It appears that the subject of inspection work was transferred to the Provincial Government and a large number of staff was transferred to the Provincial Government in the Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Government of West Pakistan, with effect from the 31st March 1966. The petitioner was also one of them. On 1st April 1966, the Government of Pakistan communicated to the Chief Secretary, Government of West Pakistan, Lahore that the seniority of the staff transferred from the Central Government will be governed by the rules applicable to the Provincial Government Services.
2. Accordingly, the seniority list was prepared and the petitioner was shown at serial No. 34. The petitioner challenged this order in Appeal No. 269/164 of 1971 before the Civil Service Appellate Tribunal. By order dated the 28th February 1972, the appeal was partly accepted and the petitioner improved his position by going upward to the extent of 9 officers. The petitioner was not satisfied with this order. He challenged the said order in Writ Petition No. 506/5 of 1972 before the Lahore High Court which was dismissed on the 25th July 1973. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
3. Mr. Gal Muhammad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the two decisions of the Civil Service Appellate Tribunal have created a very anamolous situation which cannot be resolved without setting aside the impugned order. He further contended that the seniority of the petitioner has not been fixed in accordance with law. In our opinion, the contention of the learned counsel has no force. As held by this Court in Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others (PLD 1974 SC 139), Tribunal having jurisdiction to decide a matter is competent to decide it rightly or wrongly and mere fact that decision is incorrect does not render the decision as without lawful authority. The view of the High Court is also the same. It is held that where the Tribunal could be said to have acted without jurisdiction, the High Court could interfere and quash the order and direct a competent Tribunal to decide the case afresh according to law. In the instant case, the Tribunal's order was challenged on the ground of being merely erroneous as distinguished from being without jurisdiction. The High Court has held that such orders cannot be interfered with in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 98 of the Constitution. The view of the High Court is consistent with the view taken by this Court in the above decision. In these circumstances, the High Court was perfectly justified not interfering with the order of respondent No. 2.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that certain anomalous position has been created by the two orders of the Civil Service Appellate Tribunal requires consideration by the administrative side of the Provincial Government. We are sure, they will look into the matter and resolve the anomaly, if any.
5. Subject to this remark, the petition is dismissed.