JUDGMENT Saad Saood Jan (Chairman).--These are two appeals, one filed by Mr. Muhammad Idrees Khalid (No. 111/92 of 1974) and the other by Mr. Muhammad Ayub (No. 112/91 of 1974). Both appellants dispute the seniority of Mr. Muhammad Abdul Karim who has been shown senior to them in the seniority list of Accounts Clerks issued an 28-4-1973 by the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Lahore.
2. M. F. D. Saifi, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Mr. Mohd.
Abdul Karim (hereinafter referred to as the contesting respondent) has raised a preliminary objection which is common to both appeals and is in our opinion conclusive. For this reason, these appeals are being disposed of by one order.
3. It is to be observed that under subsection (1) of section 5, Punjab Civil Services (Appellate Tribunals) Ordinance, 1970, every competent authority was under an obligation to prepare and maintain seniority lists of gazetted and non-gazetted Government servants under its administrative contfol. These lists were to be revised at least once in each calendar year. Subsection (2) of section 6 provided for the due circulation of the lists prepared under subsection (1) of section 5 among the Government servants concerned.
4. In pursuance of the above mentioned statutory directions the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineeiing Circle, Lahore published the seniority list of Accounts Clerks working within his circle on 24-11-1971 (see Annexure 'E'). In this list the two appellants were shown junior to the contesting respondent. Now, under subsection (1) of section 8 of the said Ordinance, the appellants had a right to prefer an appeal before the Civil Services Appellate Tribunal within 3 months from the date of the knowledge of the said seniority list. Instead of exercising this right they preferred representations to the Superintending Engineer. The representations were rejected in March, 1972. It was conceded before us at the bar on behalf of the appellants that they received information about the rejection of the representations in April, 1972. The appellants still did not care to approach the Civil Services Appellate Tribunal to od tain redress within three months of the kndwledge of the rejection of their representations. Thus they allowed their right to agitate, against the seniority of 24-11-1971 to become barred by time.
5. On 28-4-1973, another seniority list of Accounts Clerks was issued by the Superintending Engineer. In this list too the appellants were shown junior to the contesting respondent. The appellants once again represented to the Superintending Engineer against the seniority of the contesting respondent. Their representations were rejected by the Superintending Engineer on 7-9-1973. They then moved the Chief Engineer for the same relief. The Chief Engineer also declined to interfere in the matter. Now, they have come to this Tribunal.
6. In view of the fact that the appellants failed to approach the Civil Services Appellate Tribunal within three months from the day when their representations against the seniority list of 24-11-1971 were rejected, we are not prepared to interfere in the matter at this stage. They voluntarily allowed their right of appeal against the seniority list of 24-11-1971 to become barred by time, thus enabling the contesting respondent to acquire a valuable privilege of being placed in a higher position in the seniority list vis-a-vis the appellants The subsequent seniority list of 28-4-1973, as far as the appellant and the contesting respondent are concerned, merely reiterates the position as obtained in the seniority list of 24-11-1971. Its issuance cannot be construed so as to confer upon the appellants a new right to challenge the position in which they had acquiesced by their failure to approach the Civil Services Appellate Tribunal within the prescribed time. A contrary view would have the effect of making the provisions of Section 8 of the Punjab Civil Services Appellate Tribunals Ordinance, 1970 nugatory for it would permit a Government servant to by-pass the bar of limitation at his discretion. As already pointed out that there was a statutory requirement that seniority list should be revised at least once in each calendar year ; in case a Government servant allowed his right to become barred by time in one year he could approach the Civil Services Appellate Tribunal again the next year even though the revised list was merely a reproduction of the earlier list. This would be a ludicrous situation and entirely inconsistent with the prescription of limitation for filing of appeals.
7. For the reasons stated above, we do not thiok that we would be justified in revising the seniority of the appellant vis-a-vis the contesting respondent. Thus, these appeals are without aoy substance and are hereby dismissed with costs.