SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 1-6-1988, whereby the appeal filed by him was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1974 as Field Investigating Officer (Grade-11) in the Pakistan Narcotics Control Board. He moved through his Department for serving the Federal Investigation Agency. In May, 1977, he was allowed to do so as a deputationist In the year 1982, he was absorbed in the Federal Investigation Agency as Inspector. In the seniority list that was prepared and circulated in 1984. He was given his place reckoning his date of entry in F.I.A. As 12-5- 1982. He claimed the seniority from 9-5-1977 when he was brought on transfer. His representation within the Department did not succeed. He approached the Service Tribunal. The Service Tribunal rejected his claim by observing as hereunder: "It appears from the aforesaid letters/orders that the appellant was taken into service with the F.I.A: by the process of selection and on deputation and it was indicated that his appointment was temporary and on ad hoc basis and he was liable to reversion to his parent department. He had accepted the employment as Inspector, FIA, as such, and he! Sought his regular absorption in the FIA by making an application and he was confirmed with effect from 12-5-1982. In view of the aforesaid events, the seniority of the appellant as Inspector, F.I.A. Seems to have been correctly reckoned from the date of his regular absorption viz12-5-1982. The instructions contained in the ESTACODE, relied upon on behalf of the appellant, referred to at para. 2 ante, would not advance the case of the appellant as to claim seniority from the date of his entry into the service as Inspector, F.IA. There is no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed with no order as to costs."
3. Hafiz S.A: Rahman, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Rules of recruitment governing the petitioner and others and claimed that there being scope for appointment by transfer from one equivalent post to the other, the petitioner's appointment for the purposes of seniority should be reckoned from 9-5-1977. The learned counsel has referred to a number of other cases where the department had allowed the benefit of seniority in similar circumstances to some other individuals in the Federal Investigation Agency.
4. The very offer made to the petitioner by the F.IA. By letter dated 5-5-1977 reproduced in the judgment of the Service Tribunal showed that he was offered the post of Inspector in F.IA. On deputation making it clear that while on deputation "he will be liable for reversion to his parent department". Having accepted the appointment on these terms, he cannot disown the status of a deputationist. Even in the Order dated 5-7-1982 which has been filed at the hearing in this Court, while absorbing him in F.IA. It was made clear to him that he "absorbed in F.I.A., will continue to hold suspended lien in his parent department until his confirmation in F.IA., after which he shall become 'Permanent employee of this Agency by severing the suspended lien in the parent department/office concerned, in due course of time"
5. A reference to Rules 3 and 18 of the Federal Investigation Agency (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules makes it clear that the appointment by transfer could only be on deputation for a specified period and under Rule 18 direct appointment could be made only on the recommendation of the Departmental Selection Committee after the vacancies had been advertised and the candidates interviewed. The procedure followed in the case of the appointment of the petitioner in 1977, was not one under Rule 18, but under Rule 3. It was only in 1982 that he was appointed to the Federal Investigation Agency and he cannot take his case earlier to that for reckoning his seniority.
6. As regards the treatment given by the Department to certain others similarly situate as is the petitioner, we do not have the full facts before us nor has the Tribunal discussed them or taken note of them. In the absence of their having been impleaded and the merits of their claim examined in their presence, no benefit can be obtained by raising such pleas by the petitioner. His case is to proceed on its own merits and there is none. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.