SARDAR MUHAMMAD SAJAWAL KHAN (CHAIRMAN).---This is an appeal by Muhammad Inayat Khan, Girdarwar of Revenue Department by which he has impugned the order dated 17-1-1991 made by Commissioner, Settlement. In the aforesaid order, the learned Additional Commissioner, Settlement had upheld the entries of the seniority list of Girdawars published in the year 1989 by the Settlement Officer, Muzaffarabad by which the respondent Muhammad Hussain Kayani was declared senior to the appellant. The appellant has impleaded Additional Commissioner, Settlement, Settlement Officer, Muzaffarabad and Muhammad Hussain Kayani, Girdawar, Settlement Department, Muzaffarabad as respondents for seeking his remedy against them.
2. In the memo of his appeal, it is stated by the appellant that he had joined the service of Revenue Department under the Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir as Patwari on 28-4- 1958 while Muhammad Hussain Kayani respondent No.3 entered in that service much later on 15- lo-1965. The services of the appellant were borrowed to the Custodian Department by an order dated 16-4-1980 after retaining his lien against the post of Patwari in his parent Department. On 18- 9-1980, he was returned to the Revenue Department and was promoted against the post of Girdawar. The respondent No.3 was temporarily promoted on 9-5-1973 in the Custodian Department and taking the advantage of his temporary promotion, he was subsequently posted as Girdawar Qanoongo in Leepa on 3-1-1979 despite the fact that he had the lien against the post of Patwari in his parent Department and till then his regular promotion on the post of Girdawar according to his seniority in the ranks of Patwari had not taken place. His untimely appointment and posting as Girdawar Qanoongo in the Revenue Department caused resentment in the ranks of Patwaris who were adversely affected by his promotion against the post of Girdawar Qanoongo.
Out of aggrieved Patwaris, an appeal was taken up to the Commissioner, Revenue Department by Syed Manzoor Ali Shah, Girdawar and after hearing the parties in that appeal, the learned Commissioner held it that the name of Muhammad Hussain Kayani respondent should be removed from the seniority list of Girdawars. Muhammad Hussain respondent did not file any appeal against that order and in due course of time the order of learned Commissioner attained its finality. But unfortunately, the name of Muhammad Hussain Kayani respondent No.3 was left un- removed from the list and it continued to exist in the seniority list till 1989. The appellant felt himself aggrieved over the repeated entries of the name of Muhammad Hussain Kayani as before in the seniority list of Girdawaran. Therefore, the appellant brought an appeal before the Commissioner, Revenue Department against the wrong entry published in the seniority list dated 1989 by the Settlement Officer, Muzaffarabad. The learned Commissioner, Muzaffarabad on his part made over the appeal of the appellant to Additional Commissioner, Settlement for disposal. The learned Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 17-1-1991 held it that in his order dated 17-2-1982 the learned Commissioner has not recorded any finding in regard to the appellant for being senior to respondent No.3. He also observed it that the entries of the seniority list of Girdawaran published in the year 1984 were not challenged before any competent forum by the appellant well in time and hence the entries of that list published in the subsequent year 1989 on the basis of the previous seniority list cannot be challenged by the appellant without challenging the entries published in the previous seniority lists. The appellant did his Matric in the year 1989 and at the relevant time, when the impugned seniority lists were issued, the appellant was Middle pass and, therefore, the entry to that effect in those lists were not incorrect. It is this order of the Commissioner, Settlement Department against which the appellant has brought this service appeal before this Tribunal.
3. It is prayed by the appellant that the impugned order dated 17-1-1991 made by the Departmental Authority Additional Commissioner (Settlement) less set aside and he may be held senior to Muhammad Hussain Kayani Girdawar respondent No.3.
4. By a short order of this Tribunal dated 28-3-1991, the above appeal was admitted for regular hearing in this Tribunal and the respondents were called upon to submit their objections, if any, as to the maintainability of the appeal. In the objections submitted by respondent No3, the entries of the earlier seniority list for the year 1984 were reproduced against which the appellant had not filed any appeal and as such the appellant was not having any locus standi to challenge the entries of the seniority list published in the year 1984 after a period of eight years has elapsed. The respondent passed his Matric examination in the year 1973 while the appellant passed that examination much later than the respondent No3 in the year 1989. The respondent was promoted to the post of Girdawar on 4-1-1979 long before the services of the appellant were borrowed to the Custodian Department. The appellant was not a party to the appeal brought by Syed Manzoor Ali Shah, Girdawar against the respondent and as such the order dated 17-2-1982 passed by the learned Revenue Commissioner in that appeal was not made concerning to the seniority of the appellant in the ranks of Girdawar. Similar objections were taken by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and it was asserted on their behalf that the appellant having been promoted to the post of Girdawar at a much later stage on 15-9-1980 was allotted proper position in the seniority list and the respondent No.3 was correctly allowed senior position in the list because he was promoted to that post of Girdawar on 4-1-1979 much earlier to the appellant.
5. We have considered the arguments as were addressed by the learned counsel of each party. We have examined the appeal file and the copies of the relevant orders as were passed from time to time by the Revenue Department in regard to the appellant and his adversary respondent No3.
There is no denying the fact that the appellant entered in the service of Revenue Department as early as 28-4-1958 while Muhammad Hussain Kayani respondent No.3 entered in that service at a later stage on 15-10-1965. But it is well established from the record placed on the file that Muhammad Hussain Kayani respondent No3 was promoted to the post of Girdawar long before the appellant. The appellant did not make any appeal against that order of promotion of respondent No.3 at the proper time and for that reason he was not competent to challenge his seniority at a later stage in the year 1989. We agree with this idea that the respondent No.3 must not have been placed against the post of Girdawar after his return from Custodian Department per cause till then he held his lien against the post of Patwari. But since the order of his promotion was not challenged before the proper forum at the proper time, the appellant does not have any locus standi to challenge that promotion order at this belated stage. In his order the Settlement Commissioner has rightly observed it that the entries made in the seniority list pertaining to the year 1984 were rightly reproduced in the seniority list published in the year 1989. The appellant should have been advised to challenge the entries of the seniority list published in the year 1984 at the proper time and without doing that he had no right to bring his appeal before the Commissioner, Revenue Department in the year 1989. We find no force in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.