' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.--This appeal by leave arises in the following circumstances: ' Appellants joined service as Sub-Engineers/Overseers in the Communication and Works Department of the Government of the Punjab. They were Diploma holders. Having acquired the A.M.I.E. Qualification appellants Nos.1 to 3 on 27-1-1985 and appellant No,4 in May, 1975 were promoted as Sub-Divisional Officers on ad hoc basis for the period of six months. These promotions were against posts meant for direct recruits as is apparant from the facts that the first three appellants were advised to apply to the Public Service Commission for regular selection and also that there were no vacancies for departmental promotees. Respondents Nos.2 to 22 hold B.Sc. (Civil Engineering) Degrees. They applied to the Public Service Commission for appointment as direct Assistant Engineers. They were selected by the Commission, were appointed as Assistant Engineers by the Government of the Punjab, and they joined service on 2-6-1975.
' In the first instance on 9-3-1976 seniority list was issued in which the respondents' names appear but not those of the appellants because they were ad hoc employees. On 22-4-1976, the appellants were promoted as Assistant Engineer on regular basis from the dates of their earlier appointments on ad hoc basis in relaxation of Rule 3 of the Punjab Civil Services (Ratio of Recruitment) Rules, 1973. On 1-7-1978 a second Seniority List was issued wherein the respondents were shown senior and the appellants as junior. However, by correction made on 18-3-1981 the appellants were shown senior reckoning their service from the date shown in the order of regularising their service. This was challanged in appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. It was held to be premature. In the Final Seniority List issued on 1-4-1984 the appellants were again shown senior to the respondents. This was challenged by the latter through an appeal before Punjab Service. Tribunal. It was accepted . On the findings that the promotion of the appellant was against vacancies of direct recruits pending selection by the Public Service Commission and it was in excess of the quota of the departmental promotees. This is vide order dated 30-9-1986. Hence this appeal.
2. Contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants are that the appellants were regularised from the dates of their ad hoc appointments in relaxation of Rule 3 of Punjab Civil Services (Ratio of Recruitment) Rules, 1973, therefore, these dates being earlier than the date of appointment of the respondents, the appellants should rank senior to the respondents; secondly, the finding about the ratio of direct recruits and departmental promotees was wrongly worked out and accepted.
' Contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the learned Service Tribunal has examined the case thoroughly and come to the correct conclusion that the respondents B.Sc.
Degree holders directly recruited would get their seniority from the date of their joining service. The appellants who were Diploma holders and had obtained A.M.I.E. Qualification (which qualification has subsequently been derecognized) could at best to be the members of the service from the date when they were regularised and not from earlier dates when they had joined on ad hoc basis against posts for direct recruits and when there were no vacancies for departmental promotees.
The finding in this behalf is based on facts.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants we fmd that there is not only the finding of fact by the Special Tribunal that the appellants were promoted to posts meant for direct recruits but also the letter of their appointment on ad hoc basis makes it quite clear that they were appointed against the posts of direct recruits because they were advised to apply to Public Service Commission for regular selection. This being so subsequent regularisation of the appellants cannot adversely affect the status of direct recruits who were already appointed, that is to say, the respondents. The learned Punjab Service Tribunal specially constituted to determine the controversy has decided the appeal on the basis of facts before it. There is no substantial question of law of public importance involved in this appeal to attract exercise of power under Article 212(3) of the Constitution by this Court.
4. In view of the above there is no merit or force in this appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed but in the circumstances the parties are left to bear their own costs.