1. ORDER Saad Saood Jan (Chairman).--The appellant in this appeal challenges the correctness of the seniority list of Social Welfare Officers issued on 2-2-1974 by the Directorate of Social Welfare.
2. His first contention is that he has been wrongly shown junior to respondents 2 to I6. This Tribunal has already, in the case of Shafi Arshad Director Social Welfare (appeal No. 7/17), directed the Government to re-fix the seniority of respondents Nos. 2 to I6 vis-a-vis the Social Welfare Officers who were at.the time of merger working under the control of the Social Welfare Department. The latter category includes the appellant as well. Since this matter has again been opened no relief can be granted to the appellant at this stage. His second contention is that he is senior to respondents 2 and 3 on the ground that he started officiating as a Social Welfare Officer earlier than they. lt is to be observed that the initial appointment of the appellant was on ad hoc basis.
3. Subsequently, for regular appointment he alongwith respondents No. 2 and 3 appeared \ efore the Public Service Commission which assigned to him a lower position than respondents 2 and 3 Paragraph (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8, West Pakistan Social Welfare Department (Gazetted Posts)
4. Recruitment Rules, 1964 lays do vn that the inter se seniority of the persons appointed to the Service by initial recruitment is to be determined in accordance with order of merit fixed by the Commission. In accordance with this rule the appellant has been rightly shown junior to respondents 2 and 3. The appelant cannot avoid the operation of this rule merely on the ground that the Government has after the approval of his candidature by the Commission back-dated his appointment to the day when he actually joined service as A a stop gap measure. Prior to the approval of his candidature by the Commission his services were liable to be terminated at any time. His appoin ment. was regularised only after the Commission had,approved of hiS candidature Thus he can be said to have been selected for the Service only when the Public Service Commission included his name among its nominees. , We are, therefore, unable to accept his claim of seniority over respondents 2 and 3. For the reasons stated above the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.