ORDER Saad Saood Jan (Chairman). --The appellant in this appeal challenges two seniority lists.
One relates to the Social Welfare Officers and was notified on 20-2-1974. The other is in respect of Field Officers and was published on 25-3-1974. Both were issued by the Social Welfare Directorate.
2. It may be stated at the very outset that this Tribunal has already directed in Arshad Shafi's case that the seniority of respondents Nos. 7, 8 and l2 be refixed vis-a-vis the appellant and others. This being so, we will not consider the claim of the appellant for seniority in respect of these respondents in this order.
3. The claim of the appellant for seniority vis-a-vis respondent No. 2 must also be rejected as this question has already been decided by the Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Dy its order dated 8-2-19/J. It may be stated that this order was passed in the appeal filed by respondent No. 2 and the appellant was a party thereto.
4. The case of the appellant for seniority qua respondents 3--10 in the list of 20-2-1974 is based upon his longer tenure of service. It may be mentioned that the Provincial Government created a large number of posts of Social Welfare Officers. These posts were to be filed through the Public Service Commission. The appellant was offered one of these posts on an ad hoc basis and his appointment was to last till the recommendation of the Commission became available to Government. Later, in response to an advertisement by the Commission the appellant as well as respondents 3--10 appeared before the Commission which included them amongst its recommendees. However, in preparing the order of merit, the Commission assigned a lower position to the appellant vis-a-vis respondents 3--10. The Social Welfare Directorate has prepared the seniority list of 20*2-1974 on the basis of the order of merit fixed by the Commission.
5. After the approval of his candidature, the appellant was given a fresh letter of appointment. In this letter, the Provincial Government directed the appellant's appointment to date back to the day when he took over on an ad hoc basi3. This date is anterior in point of time to the dates of appointment of respondents Nos. 3--10.
6. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that in ante-dating his appointment the Provincial Government has rejected the order of merit settled by the Commission and as such he is entitled to rank senior to respondents No. 3--10 whose dates of appointment are subsequent to his own. This contention has been considered by us in the case of Mr. Riffat Mahmood v. Director Social Welfare, Punjab and others () and res- jected. We see no reasons to take a different view in this appeal. We, therefore,^ reject the claim of the appellant for seniority vis-a-vis respondents Nos. 3--10] in the seniority list of 20-2-1974.
7. In the seniority list of 25-3-1974, the appellant claims seniority over respondents 3--6 on the basis that he was senior to them as Social Welfare Officer. As we have not accepted his contention in this regard, we also reject his claim for seniority over these repondents in the list of 25-3-1974.
8. As regards respondents 7--10, the appellant claims that he was appointed as Field Officer earlier than they and as such, he should be placed above them in the seniority list of Field Officers. This claim is also not sustainable. The relevant rules in this regard say that a senior officer will retain his seniority over a junior officer even though the junior officer was promoted earlier than he unless his claim was alsa considered as the time of promotion of the junior officer. The appellant did not make any assertion that at the time of bis promotion as Field Officer the cases of respondents 7--10 B were also considered. Thus, we are unable to accept the assertion of the appellant that he is senior to respondents No. 7--10 in the seniority list of 25-3-1974. - 9. The seniority of respondent No. 11 qua the appellant has been fixed in accordance with the order of merit prepared by the Public Service Com-jC mission. The fact that he joined the Department before respondent No. Ill is irrelevant. He has been rightly shown junior to her.
10. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed with costs.