' SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH (CHAIRMAN).---Appellant Mian Inayat Ullah, a Lecturer under the Ministry of Education, has preferred this appeal for determination of his seniority vis-a-vis that of the respondent No,2, Mr. Anwar Ali, with added prayer for his confirmation in the service.
2. The facts in the background, briefly stated, are that the appellant was appointed, on the recommendation by the Federal Public Service Commission, as a Lecturer in Statistics (Grade-17), in the Federal Government College for Men, H-9 Sector, Islamabad, vide Notification dated 13th July, 1978 issued by the Ministry of Education. He had joined the service in the College earlier on 20-4- 1978. The respondent No,2 was appointed as a Lecturer in Statistics, on ad hoc basis, w,e,f, 29-4- 1975 vide Ministry of Education Notification No,F.8-4/75- CEI, dated 6-5-1975. The tenure of his ad hoc appointment was for six months or till the nominee of the FPSC became available, whichever event was earlier. The tenure of his ad hoc appointment was extended from time to time and the last extension granted for six months was w,e,f, 29-10-1977. His ad hoc appointment was terminated w,e,f, 20-4-1978 as per U/O No,F.5-149/76-CA, dated 25-4-1978 addressed to the Deputy Secretary (IW), Ministry of Education by the Deputy Director (Colleges). The respondent No,2 re-entered the Federal Government service as a Lecturer under the Ministry of Education w,e,f, 25-4-1979, on his selection by the Federal Public Service Commission, as per Ministry of Education Notification No, F.
7-17/78-CEI, dated 27-5-1979. The Ministry of Education by Notification No,F.8-14/73-CEI, dated 31-3- 1980 regularised the appointment of respondent No,2 w,e,f, 3-5-1977, treating the period from 20-4- 1978 to 24-4-1979 he had remained out of the job as extraordinary leave without pay and allowances. The Ministry of Education circulated a provisional seniority list of Lecturers working in the Federal Government Colleges for Men, Islamabad, under letter dated 30-11-1981. The name of the appellant was placed therein at serial No,72, showing his date of appointment as 1-1-1978, whereas the name of the respondent No,2 was placed at serial No,67, showing his date of appointment as 3-5-1977. The appellant made representation dated 13-1-1982 to the Secretary, Ministry of Education, against the seniority assigned to respondent No,2 above him. Failing to get orders on his representation, he preferred this appeal on 10-4-1982.
3. The respondents have resisted the appeal. In the written objections filed by Section Officer, Establishment Division, legal objections have been taken that the appeal is not maintainable in law or on facts and that the appellant has no cause of action for filing the appeal; and above all the appeal is time-barred. On facts, the events of the appointment of the appellant and that of the respondent No,2 have not been disputed. It has, however, been stated that the regularisation of ad hoc appointment of respondent No,2 was made under the directive of the President, on the basis of decision taken at a Conference of the Education Ministers and Secretaries held on 3-5-1977, and the respondent No,2 was assigned seniority from the day his service was regularised viz. 3-5-1977 and his name was placed above the appellant, whose date of appointment happened to be later in time. Respondent No,2 has contended that his ad hoc service was regularised by the competent authority and, therefore, he stood senior to the appellant.
4. The appeal was heard by a Bench of this Tribunal on 4-1-1984 and it was allowed by the judgment dated 24-1-1984. The judgment of the Tribunal was set aside by the Supreme Court by order dated 14-12-1987 in Civil Appeal No,863 of 1984, preferred by the Federation of Pakistan and another. The order reads as under:-- "In this appeal, the competency of the order, dated 18th March, 1980, issued by the Establishment Division is under challenge as it has direct bearing on the inter se seniority.
' While dealing with the competency of the order there was no representation of President's Order dated 30th May, 1979, before the Tribunal and it is now produced before us for the first time to contend that in view of it the Establishment Division's order dated 18-3-1980 was valid under sections 23 and 25 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. Accordingly, the counsel for the parties agreed that the order of the Service Tribunal may be set aside and the case be remanded to the Tribunal for this purpose.
' We would, therefore, set aside the order of the Service Tribunals and remand the case to the Service Tribunal for deciding it afresh."
5. The appeal has, therefore, been heard afresh. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the initial appointment of the respondent No,2 as a Lecturer was purely ad hoc and it was continued from time to time and it stood terminated w,e,f, 20-4-1978 and his fresh appointment vide Notification dated 25-4-1979 did not entitle him to the benefit of continuity in service, particularly in the circumstances that there was gap between his ad hoc service and his regular appointment i,e, from 20-4-1978 to 24-4-1979 and that gap could not be condoned under any provision of law. He has contended that the decision taken at the Conference of Education Ministers and the Secretaries in 1977 was based on a Notification of the erstwhile Government of West Pakistan dated 7-3-1970 and service the respondent No,2 could not be regularised thereunder. He has placed reliance on a case reported in 1986 SCMR 873.
6. The learned counsel for the Federal Government has urged that the ad hoc service of respondent No,2 was regularised under the order of the President made in exercise of powers vested in him under sections 23 and 25 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and that order has not been challenged in appeal which is directed only against the entries in the seniority list. He has emphatically urged that the appeal filed on 10-4-1982 challenging the Notification dated 29-3-1981 is time-barred. According to him, the appellant filed a departmental appeal on 9-8-1981, as stated in the second departmental appeal dated 31-10-1981, and it was dismissed on 6-2-1982 and the appeal filed on 10-4-1982 is time-barred.
7. Respondent No,2 has submitted written arguments. His case is that he had made representations against the termination of his service in 1978 and, in the meantime, he was selected by the Federal Public Service Commission for regular appointment and he was duly appointed and the injustice meted out by termination of his service was redressed by regularisation of his service by the order of the President and the intervening period he had remained out of the job was treated as leave and he was, therefore, rightly assigned seniority from the day decision was taken for regularisation of service of ad hoc Lecturers viz. 3-5-1977.
8. There is no dispute on facts that the respondent No,2 was appointed as Lecturer in Statistics on ad hoc basis in the Federal Government College for Men, H-9, Islamabad, w,e,f, 29-4-1975 and his ad hoc service was terminated w,e,f, 20-4-1978 and he was re-appointed as a Lecturer, on his selection by the FPSC, and was posted as such in the Federal Government College for Commerce, Islamabad w,e,f, 25-4-1979 whereas the appellant was appointed as a Lecturer in the Federal Government College for Men, H-9, Islamabad, on his selection by the FPSC, w,e,f, 20-4-1978. The dispute over seniority between the two contestants is in respect of the service of respondent No,2 on ad hoc basis and the gap of the period he remained out of the service on termination of his ad hoc service till his re-appointment by way of his selection by the Federal Public Service Commission. The first period of his ad hoc service was regularised w,e,f, 3-5-1977 and the gap in his service from 20-4-1978 to 24-4-1979 was treated as extraordinary leave without pay and allowances in the following circumstances.
9. In an identical case of one Mrs.Raana Kamal, a Lecturer in the Federal Government College for Women, the Establishment Division submitted to the President a Summary dated 29-10-1978, in pursuance of the directions by the President that comments should be submitted on a representation made to him at his open door meeting to meet the people at Rawalpindi on 22-7- 1978 by her for regularisation of her appointment as a Lecturer in the College. It was stated in the Summary that Mrs. Raana Kamal was initially appointed as an NDVP nominee in the Federal Government College for Women on 19-3-1974 and she was later appointed as a Lecturer in Geography, on ad hoc basis, in the same College, on 13-5-1974 and she continued serving as such until her services were abruptly terminated on 3-9-1977, despite the fact that her case was under process for regularisation in pursuance of a decision taken at the Education Ministers' Conference held on 3-5-1977 that all Federal Government ad hoc Lecturers appointed since 1-3-1972 may be placed on regular footing as had been done in the Provinces, and the following recommendation was made at paragraph 5 of the Summary: "It is recommended that Mrs. Raana Kamal may be deemed as regularised. In the appointment of lecturer w,e,f, 3-5-1977 (the date of the decision of the Education Ministers Conference) and adjusted against an existing or a supernumerary vacancy. The intervening period between the date of termination of service and the date of reinstatement may be treated as extraordinary leave without pay."
' The Summary was returned by the COS to the President on 2-11-1978 for probing into the matter as to who was responsible for termination of her service. Inquiry was held by Mr. SA. Sayood, Additional Secretary (Inquiry). The matter was re-submitted to the President by the Establishment Secretary under Summary dated 5-5-1979, wherein it was disclosed that the case of Mrs. Raana Kamal was mishandled before the Federal Public Service Commission as well as in the Ministry of Education and her services were wrongly terminated. Orders of the President were, therefore, solicited on the recommendations of the Inquiry Officer recapitulated in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Summary, reproduced below:-- "19. On the basis of his findings, the Inquiry Officer has recommended as follows:--
(i) So far as the representation of Mrs. Raana Kamal is concerned, recommendations of the Establishment Secretary made in para. 5 of the Summary for the President (that Mrs. Kamal may be regularised in her appointment as Lecturer w,e,f, 3-5-1977 against an existing or supernumerary post, and the intervening period may be treated as extraordinary leave without pay, in keeping with President's orders already passed on her application vide para. 1 of the Summary) may kindly be approved;
(ii) Action be taken to regularise the cases of other ad hoc Lecturers in the light of the recommendations made in the Education Ministers' Conference which were shelved at a subordinate and inappropriate level.
20. In addition to the above recommendations, the Establishment Division propose as follows:-
(i) A copy of the Inquiry Report may be forwarded to the Ministry of Education and they may be asked to examine it with a view to initiating disciplinary action against the officers concerned of that ministry in the light of the report where necessary;
(ii) The FPSC may be informed of the omissions on their part."
' The President was pleased to approve the recommendations made by the Inquiry Officer.
Accordingly, Mrs. Raana Kamal, was reinstated in service and the gap in her service was treated as extraordinary leave without pay.
10. Pursuant to the orders of the President, the cases of other ad hoc lecturers were examined and the following Summary dated 21-1-1980 was initiated by the Ministry of Education in the case of respondent No, 2 (Anwar Ali) and another Lecturer Miss Nasreen Iqbal: "SUMMARY FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT SECRETARY ' Subject: REINSTATEMENT/REGULARISATION OF THE SERVICES OF AD HOC LECTURERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COLLEGES, ISLAMABAD: ' Reference Establishment Division Office Memorandum No, 5/1/78- R.III, dated 1st January, 1980, on the above subject.
2. In accordance with the decision taken in the Education Ministers' Conference held on 3-5-1977, the services of ad hoc lecturers who were in service on 30-6-1975 and were borne on the strength of the Federal Government Educational Institutions on 3-5-1977 were to be considered for regularising the services of Mrs. Raana Kamal, Miss Tasheem Bokhari and Miss Nasreen Fatima.
3. The following two lecturers fall within the same category and are accordingly recommended for regularisation w,e,f, 3-5-1977:-
(i) Mr. Anwar Ali Khan: ' He was appointed as Lecturer in Statistics on ad hoc basis in the Federal Government College for Men, Islamabad, on 24-4-1975 (FN) and was relieved of his duties on joining of Mr. Inayatullah, a Commission nominee on 20-4-1979. He was again appointed as Lecturer in Statistics in the Federal Government College for Men, w,e,f, 25-4-1979. Thus, there is a break of more than one year in his service. This will have to be treated as extraordinary leave without pay.
(ii) Miss Nasreen Iqbal: ' She was appointed as Lecturer in Statistics, w,e,f, 12-4-1975 in the Federal Government College for Women, Islamabad and has since then been continuously working as Lecturer on ad hoc basis with the approval of the Establishment Division. The post against which she is working has been referred to the Federal Public Service Commission and interviews are being held for the same. This post may, therefore, be withdrawn from the Commission.
4. The above proposal has the approval of the Education Minister.
5. Approval of the Establishment Division with regard to the proposal in para. 3 is requested".
' The Summary was submitted to the Establishment Secretary by the S.O.(R.II) by his note dated 7- 2-1980/11-3-1980, making the following recommendations at paragraph 104:- "Since the President has already accorded his approval to implement the Education Ministers'
Conference decision of 3-5-1977, the Establishment Secretary, who is competent to make appointments to posts in Grades 17 to 19, may be pleased to accord his approval to the proposals of the Ministry of Education made in the Summary, dated the 21st January, 1980, and summarised in the preceding paragraph."
' The Establishment Secretary agreed and the decision was conveyed to the Ministry of Education under Office Memorandum dated 18-3-1980, reproduced below:- "CABINET SECRETARIAT ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION Rawalpindi, the 18th March, 1980.
OFFICE MEMORANDUM ' Subject: Reinstatement/regularisation of the services of ad hoc Lecturers of the Federal Government College Islamabad: ' The undersigned is directed to refer to the Ministry of Education U.O. No,8/14/73-CE.1, dated the 21st January, 1980, on the above subject, and to state that the competent authority has accorded his approval to the proposals made in para. 3 of the Summary, namely:-
(i) Mr. Anwar Ali Khan and Miss Nasreen Iqbal may be deemed to have been regularised in their appointment of Lecturers w,e,f, the 3rd May, 1977 and adjusted against an existing or supernumerary vacancy; and
(ii) The period from 20-4-1978 to 24-4-1979 in respect of Mr. Anwar All Khan may be treated as extraordinary leave without pay and allowances.
(Sd. ) Mashkoor Ahmad Khan, JOINT SECRETARY."
11. The events mentioned above bear out that the ad hoc service of respondent No,2 and the gap in his service were regularised on the analogy of the regularisation of similar service of Mrs. Raana Kamal under the orders of the President and his case and those of some other lecturers, who were likewise appointed on ad hoc basis and their services too were terminated, were reviewed in pursuance of the directions of the President on the Summary submitted for the regularisation of the case of Mrs. Raana Kamal. The case of respondent No,2 was reviewed in the Ministry of Education and approval for regularisation was accorded by the Establishment Secretary, who is the appointing authority of the civil servants in Grades 17 to 19 as per Rule 6 of the Civil Servants (Appointment Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973. However, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the ad hoc service of the respondent No,2 and the gap in his service could not be regularised. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in similar cases reported in 1986 SCMR at page 873. In those cases also, the question of seniority of ad hoc appointees on regularisation of their services vis-a-vis the candidates selected by the Public Service Commission was involved. Some of those appeals before the Supreme Court were against the decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal and some were against the decision of N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal. The contesting parties were the selectees of the Public Service Commission of 1967 and 1968 batches on one side, and on the other side were the ad hoc appointees, whose services were regularised under the order of the Government of West Pakistan dated 28-2-1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Order). The Order is reproduced below in extenso:"
"GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN SERVICES & GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION The 28th February, 1970 ' No, SORIII-1-40/69. In pursuance of the provisions of the Martial Law Proclamation of 25th March, 1969, read with the Provisional Constitution Order and in exercise of powers enabling him in that behalf, the Governor of West Pakistan is pleased to direct that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any rules relating to the method of recruitment of or the age for appointment to any Service or post under the rule making authority of the Governor of West Pakistan -
(a) every person appointed on ad hoc basis to any Service or post under the rule making authority of the Governor of West Pakistan whose appointment to such Service or post has not been regularised for any reason shall, with effect from the date of this Notification, be deemed to have been regularly appointed to such Service or post; provided that -
(i) such person has continuously served in such Service or post, as the case may be, since 1st January, 1966:
(ii) such person possesses the qualification prescribed for such Service or post, as the case may be, at the time of his ad hoc appointment thereto;
(iii) such person has, in the opinion of the West Pakistan Public Service Commission, a satisfactory record of service;
(iv) such person has not been previously rejected by the West Pakistan Public Commission for such service or post, except in the case of a person who could not be selected for want of a vacancy under the regional representation formula;
(v) such person was appointed in accordance with the ratio prescribed in the relevant rules for appointment by initial recruitment vis-a-vis promotion to such service or post; and
(vi) the West Pakistan Public Service Commission has in respect of the appointment or post hold by such person, not recommended any other person;
(b) the person whose appointment is regularised under the provisions of these orders, shall count their seniority in the service, grade cadre or post, to which they are so regularly appointed w,e,f, 1st January, 1970; and
(c) in the case of persons appointed on ad hoc basis to any Service or post under the rule making authority of the Governor of West Pakistan, whose appointment thereto cannot be regularised under these orders, the period of service already rendered by them in that capacity plus a period of one year shall, for the purpose of reckoning the upper age limit prescribed in respect of any other service or post under any Service or Recruitment, be excluded from their age.
' By the order of the Governor VA. JAFAREY Addl. Chief Secretary, Government of West Pakistan, Services and General Administration Department."
' Considering all the aspects of the case including the import and effect of the order, it was held by the Supreme Court that the selectees of the Public Service Commission of the batches of 1967 and 1968 were deemed to be senior to the ad hoc appointees whose services were regularised under the order, even though the former were appointed after the order of regularisation of services of the ad hoc appointees was issued. No mention was made in respect of the candidates of 1969 as no selection was held by the Commission during that year. The case of respondent No,2 herein was regularised in pursuance of the decision taken at the meeting of the Provincial Education Ministers held under the chairmanship of the Federal Education Minister on 3rd May, 1977, that regularisation of the ad hoc Lecturers appointed under the Federal Government Educational Institutions may be made on the same basis as was done in the Provinces. It was stated before us by the departmental representatives as well as by their Advocate that the decision had reference to the provisions of the order dated 28th February, 1970. Accepting that statement, the case has to be looked into under the sphere of that order. The scope and the tenor of the order was examined by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment as under:- "The Order which is under examination while recruiting ad hoc employees, excludes in proviso (vi) the appointment or post" held by such ad hoc employees for which West Pakistan Public Service Commission has recommended any other person". This proviso restricts the eligibility of ad hoc appointees to the residue. From the comments of the Punjab Government, and as it is relatable to the period prior to dissolution of West Pakistan, it will equally apply to N.-W.F.P., the requisition placed with the Public Service Commission for recruiting the 1969 batch was recalled, as it was anticipated that the Order would be forthcoming. In this manner and on the strength of proviso (vi) the recommendations already made were excluded from the purview of the Order. Those recruited under the Order cannot take their seniority to a date earlier than 1-1-1970. Under the Order the date of taking over is immaterial, for in the case of those recruited under the Order, date of induction is 28-2-1970 but seniority has been allowed from 1-1-1970. In the case of the recruits under the Rules, the date of appointment in service may be subsequent to 1-1-1970 but if the recommendation is relatable to 1967 or 1968 selection then they take back their seniority to those selections. In this manner there remains no conflict to be resolved for seniority will follow the batches in order, 1967, 1968, 1970, there being none for 1969, the requisition having been recalled.
' The date of communication of recommendation has also no relevance. The posts for recruitment under the Rules were advertised by West Pakistan Public Service Commission in 1967 and 1968. The selections were held by the West Pakistan Public Service Commission. The dissolution of West Pakistan came about on 30-6-1970 by President's Order No,1 of 1970 promulgated on 30th March, 1970. Even under the Order the cases of ad hoc appointees had to be sent to the Public Service Commission for satisfaction of some of the conditions prescribed in the provisos to the Order e.g.
(i) satisfactory record of service (ii) possession of minimum qualifications (iii) required period of continued ad hoc appointment (iv) his earlier non-rejection by the Commission (v) no other person has been recommended for such post or appointment. It is not anybody's case that the appointment letters issued to the appellants had not been issued on the basis of selections made in 1967 or 1968 or that the recommendations of the Public Service Commission concerning them related to any other recruitment except these two batches. Such being the position there was left no conflict in fixing the seniority. The Punjab Government correctly prepared the seniority list. The N.-W.F.P. Government was inconsistent in applying the rule of seniority."
It would thus appear that in the light of the observations by the Supreme Court, the decision taken by the Education Ministers referred to above, did not confer on the ad hoc appointees automatic regularisation in service, but their cases had to be processed through and examined by the Public Service Commission whether they satisfied the conditions viz. That record of their service was satisfactory, they possessed minimum qualifications, they had completed required period of continued ad hoc appointment; they had not been rejected earlier by the Commission; and no other person had been recommended by the Commission for such post or appointment. In the instant case, the case of respondent No,2 does not seem to have been referred to the Federal Public Service Commission for required review and the regularisation of his case suffered from that taint and it did not earn him seniority with retrospective effect, particularly in the circumstances that his service stood terminated w,e,f, 20-4-1978 on selection of the appellant by the Federal Public Service Commission for the same post and his actual appointment thereto. The respondent No,2 remained out of the job from 20-4-1978 until he was re-appointed on 25-4-1979 after his selection by the Federal Public Service Commission for another post. One of the conditions for regularisation of service of ad hoc appointees under the Order was continuity in that service till its regularisation. Had the case 'of the respondent No,2 been examined in proper perspective of the Order, his service might not have been regularised. Another aspect of the case is that the appellant's selection by the Federal Public Service Commission was made in the year 1977, which fact is evident from the notification of his appointment dated 13th July, 1978 (at page 3 of the memo of appeal) indicating reference to the letter of Commission No,F.4/293/77-E, dated 1- 1-1978. The order of regularisation of the ad hoc service of respondent No,2 was made in the year 1980. On the analogy of the cases considered by the Supreme Court, the regularisation of the ad hoc service of respondent No,2 in the year 1980, although given retrospectivity w,e,f, 3-5-1977, did not transplant the respondent No,2 over the appellant for the purpose of their interne seniority. In any case, the respondent No,2 was not entitled to reckon his seniority over and above the appellant who had replaced him on the post the former was appointed to on ad hoc basis. It may be observed here that the seniority position of the appellant and the respondent No,2 in the impugned seniority list is at S.Nos.72 and 67 respectively and there are names of four other Lecturers in between. The appellant has not made them respondents in appeal. He, therefore, cannot override their position in the seniority list.
12. Adverting to the legal objections, the substantial objection is that of limitation. The respondent's contention is that the appellant's departmental appeal was turned down on 6-2-1982 and he could prefer appeal within thirty days, whereas he filed the appeal on 10-4-1982 and it is time-barred. The learned counsel for the respondents has urged at the hearing of the appeal that the appeal is directed against the Notification dated 29-3-1980 and it is, therefore, hopelessly time-barred. He has made reference to the memorandum of appeal dated 31-12-1981 mentioning that departmental appeal was filed on 9-8-1981 and the appellant was informed of dismissal of his departmental appeal by letter dated 6-2-1982 and, therefore, the appeal filed on 10-4-1982 is time- barred. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant has preferred this appeal against the seniority list issued on 30-11-1981 and he made representation on 13-1-1982 and awaiting decision thereon for 90 days and failing to get any reply, he preferred this appeal on 10-4- 1982 and it is well within time. The appellant has not stated full facts in the memo of appeal. Of course, it is stated in para 4 of the memo of appeal that the service of the respondent No,2 regularised on 31-3-1980, w,e,f, 3-5-1977 and thereby his seniority was affected, but it is not stated as to when he became conscious of that fact. The Notification of regularisation of service of the respondent No,2 was issued on 31-3-1980. There is on record a photostat copy of memo of departmental appeal (marked as second appeal) to the President of Pakistan purported to have been made by the appellant on 3-12-1981 against the regularisation of the service of respondent No,2 having affected his seniority. There is mention therein that an earlier appeal was filed on 19-8- 1981. The appellant has himself filed a photostat copy of the letter dated 6-2-1982 addressed to him by the Assistant Educational Adviser, Ministry of Education, that his application dated 31-12-1981 (which seems to have reference to his second appeal dated 3-12-1981, referred to above) was received in the Ministry and he was informed that his seniority was determined in accordance with section 8(1) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and if at all he felt aggrieved, he should have approached the Service Tribunal. In this letter, he was also reprimanded for having submitted an application to the President/CMLA direct, but it is not stated when this letter was received by the appellant. In the meantime, the appellant had made representation to the Secretary, Ministry of Education dated 13-1-1982 against the provisional seniority list which was circulated under letter dated 30-11-1981. Awaiting orders thereon for 90 days, he preferred this appeal on 10-4-1982. The appeal is, therefore, within time as regards the seniority list circulated under letter dated 30-11-1981, but it is not within time as regards the order of regularisation of service of respondent No,2. The appellant's prayer in the appeal is two-fold: firstly that the Ministry of Education may be advised to reconsider and revise the order of regularisation of service of respondent No,2, and secondly that he may be declared senior to respondent No,2. He has also added prayer that he may be confirmed in service. As discussed above, the appellant's appeal in respect of the relief against the regularisation of service of respondent No,2 is time-barred, while his appeal against the seniority list publisheil in 1981 is within time. The other objection is to the maintainability of the appeal. There are two grounds against the maintainability of the appeal although not specifically raised in the written objections. One of the grounds is that the question of the seniority of the appellant vis-a-vis that of the respondent No,2 is dependent on the question of regularisation of ad hoc service of respondent No,2 vide order dated 31-3-1980. The appellant cannot succeed in getting that order revoked as he made his relief time-barred, as discussed above. So long that order stands intact, the appellant cannot succeed in getting seniority over and above the respondent No,2. The other ground is that the appellant's position in the impugned seniority list is at S.No,72 whereas that of the respondent No,2 at S.No,67 and there are names of four other lecturers in between and they have not been made party. In that situation, the appellant cannot be placed above them and the respondent No,2 could not be brought below them and the appellant's prayer cannot be given effect to. Thus, the appellant cannot maintain the appeal.
13. For the reasons recorded above the appeal is not only time-barred but is also not maintainable, we dismiss it, with no order as to costs.