1. ' FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---These Civil Appeals Nos. 357 of 1992 to 360 of 1992 by leave of the Court are directed against the judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, dated 1-3-1992; whereby, the appellants' appeals challenging notification dated 30-7-1989 wherein respondents Nos.4 and 5 had been shown senior to them, were dismissed.
2. ' Facts of the case giving rise to C.A. 375/92 with leave of the Court briefly stated, are that the appellants after having passed their B.Sc. Honour in agriculture joined service as Research Assistant in the Research Wing of Agriculture Department on 28-5-1973. Their appointment was initially on ad hoc basis but subsequently on their selection by the Public Service Commission their services were regularised on 5-8-1976. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 joined service as Research Assistant on ad hoc basis on 19-6-1974 and 1-2-1976, respectively, i,e. Much after the appellants' appointment on ad hoc basis as stated above. Respondents Nos.4 and 5 could not clear the N.- W.F.P. Public Service Commission Examination despite repeated attempts, therefore, their services were terminated vide Notification No,SOG (E) AD-11 (2)/78/VII dated 29-9-1980. Respondents Nos.4 and 5 and several others aggrieved by the said notification challenged the same through Writ Petition (No, 640 of 1980) in the Peshawar High Court. The learned High Court vide judgment dated 22-9-1981 accepted the Writ Petition and declared the order/notification of termination of the services of the writ petitioner in Scale No, 17 and his appointment in Scale No,16, as illegal and without lawful authority. Government applied for review of the judgment on the ground that respondents' services could be regularised only after they are selected by the Public Service Commission. The learned Division Bench vide its order dated 4-5-1983 disposed of the review petition with the observation that the respondents already stood regularized.
3. ' As far as the case of the appellants is concerned their main grievance before the learned Tribunal was that in the seniority list circulated after about 10 years vide notification dated 30-7-1989 the appellants were shown junior to respondents Nos. 4 and 5. This list was endorsed to the head of the Department by letter dated 17-10-1990. After having come to know of it the appellants made represenation/appeal to the N.-W.F.P. Agriculture University, Peshawar Administering the Research Wing of the Agricutlure Department. The Director Research Wing N.-W.F.P. Agriculture University vide letter dated 27-11-1990 communicated to the appellants vide letter dated 8-12-1990 turned down the "representation against the seniority of the respondents Nos.4 and 5.
4. ' The seniority of respondents Nos.4 and 5 was challenged on the ground of it being violative of the law and the rules governing the service as the appellants joined service "as ad-hoc Research Assistants" earlier than respondents Nos.4 and 5 in time and that they were regularized after they were selected by the Public Service Commission. On the contrary respondents Nos.4 and 5 remained "ad hoc" employees and in their failure to be selected by the Public Service Commission their services were terminated. That under section 8 of the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants Act i,e. Seniority could be determined from the date of regular appointment in the post/scale or from the date of regular promotion and in both these eventualities the appellants stood senior to respondents Nos.4 and 5. That the learned High Court in its judgment dated 22-9-1981 had not directed that respondents Nos.4 and 5 be placed senior to the appellants.
5. ' In rebuttal of the above and in contesting the appeal before the learned Tribunal respondents Nos.4 and 5 stated that the appeal was barred by time and that the matter had earlier been finally decided. On factual aspect of the case it was stated that the services of the respondents Nos.4 and 5 were regualrized much before the regularization of the services of the appellants. It was further stated that Mehboob-ur-Rehman, appellant in Appeal No,3 of 1991, before the Tribunal, had earlier objected to the first seniority list and had also filed an appeal (Appeal No,41 of 1986) before the Tribunal but it was dismissed on 7-9-1986. The appellant did not challenge the judgment dated 7- 9-1986, hence the dispute with regard to the seniority list circulated on 12-2-1985 attained finality.
6. Morcso, the subsequent seniority lists dated 24-2-1988 and 20-3-1989 were not challenged in the light of the above judgment.
7. ' Qazi Muhammad Anwar, the learned counsel for the appellants vehemently urged before us that as far as factual aspect of the case is concerned it could not be controverted that the appellants were senior to respondents Nos.4 and 5 as "ad hoc" appointees and their regularization in the service on selection by the Public Service Commission. It also stands proved on the record that respondents Nos.4 and 5 had not been selected before regularization of the appellants' services but their seniority was disturbed for the first time vide judgment of the High Court to which the appellants were not made parties. That in absence of any direction by the learned High Court that respondents Nos.4 and 5 be treated senior to the appellants the learned Tribunal was wrong in basing reliance on said judgment while dismissing their appeals. It was further contended that even otherwise the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the seniority matter under the proviso of the Service Tribunals Act.
8. ' The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand vehemently argued that the relevant facts going into the roots of the case and material for resolving the present dispute have been suppressed not even in the appeal before the Tribunal but the present petition for leave to appeal. '
9. The assertions made that the first senority list published on 30-7-1989 and circulated on 17-10-1990 is factually wrong. It was pointed out that the first seniority list was published on 12-2-1985 in pursuance of the notification dated 30-11-1983 issued by the Government of N.-W.F.P. Whereby respondents Nos.4 and 5 services were regularized from the date of their appointment and their initial induction in the service. The appellants made presentation agaidst the seniority list as respondents No,4 and 5 were shown senior to the appellants on the basis of the said notification.
10. However, their representation was rejected. On rejection of their representation only Mehboob-ur- Rehman appellant approached the Service Tribunal in Appeal No, 41 of 1986 but his appeal was dismissed by the learned Tribunal on 7-9-1986. It would be helpful to reproduce the relevant portion from the judgment as under:-- "On 2-8-1986 Mehboob-ur-Rehman thereupon filed the present appeal in this Tribunal questioning the seniority of Mrs. Manzoor Nazil, Adam Khan, Jan Muhammad and Ejaz Begum who are also senior to him but are junior to Mrs. Manzoor Nazil were also impleaded as respondents. After hearing counsel for the appellant and going through the file it is abundantly clear that there is no merit in this appeal. The Government has regularised the service of Mrs. Manzoor Nazil with effect from a date earlier than the date of the regularization of the service of the appellant and she was, therefore, admittedly senior to him. It could not be shown by counsel for the appellant that the Government was not authorised to regularise the appointment of the respondents from a date earlier than the date of the regularisation of the appellant. There is thus nothing in this appeal which is hereby dismissed in limine."
11. The judgment of the Tribunal attained finality inter se seniority of the parties as it was not challenged in appeal as provided for under the law. Any subsequent seniority list in conformity with the earlier one could neither be challenged by departmental representation nor in appeal before the Tribunal in view of the law laid down in Chairman, P.I.A.C. And others v. Nasim Malik (PLD 1990 SC 951).
12. ' We, therefore, finding no infirmity in the judgment of the learned Tribunal dismiss these appeals.
13. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.