Appeal No. 283(R) of 199 RANA RIFAT SAEED (MEMBER).---The learned counsel had stated that the appellant, Muhammad Ramzan, had been appointed as Stenographer with effect from 30-5-1975 vide Office Order dated 16-6-1975. Later on some adjustment in the appointments of Stenographers had been circulated vide seniority list dated 9-12-1981, wherein the appellant had been shown against a regular promotion vacancy with effect from 3-2-1978 and since vide earlier Order dated 16-6-1975, the appellant had been promoted as Stenographer with effect from 30-5-1975, he had made a representation on 19-12-1981 for his seniority as Stenographer w.e.f. 30-5-1975 instead of 3-2-1978, as, shown in the adjustment roster. But this was not responded by the respondent-Department. A final seniority list of Steno typists and Stenographers was again issued during February 1982, wherein the appellant had been shown as a regular Stenographer w.e.f. 30-5-1975. This had established that the date of regular promotion as Stenographer and seniority thereof in respect of the appellant was w.e.f. 30-5-1975 and not w.e.f.3-2-1978.
2.The respondent Department again on 21-3-1988 had issued a provisional seniority list of Stenogrtaphers in which the appellant had been shown as regular promotee Stenogrpaher w.e.f.
10-3-1986 which disturbed his original seniority as Stenographer w.e.f. 30-5-1975.The appellant had made a representation on 3-4-1988 and it was no replied by the respondent Department.The learned counsel had brought out that since a final seniority list of Stenographers had already been issued in February 1982 by the respondent-Department showing the seniority of the appellant with effect ,from. 30-5-1975, it was unlawful and unrequired under the relevant rules for the respondent- Department to have again issued a provisional seniority list on 21-3-1988. He had stated that it was mala fide, unlawful and violative of the rules that the seniority of the appellant had been brought down by the Department by 11 years.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent-Departments as well as for the private respondents had mentioned that the appellant had been occupying a leave/deputation vacancy of Stenographer w.e.f. 30-5-1975 and he had not been appointed Stenographer on regular basis until and unless a regular promotion vacancy had occurred w.e.f. 10-3-1986 and similar was case of the other appellant, Azhar Hamid. The private respondents from 3 to 12 had been appointed on regular basis against direct vacancies during the period falling between February 1978 to February 1986 and as such they were senior to the appellant who had occupied a regular promotion vacancy w.e.f. 10-3- 1986. Also against the provisional seniority list issued on 21-3-1988 and against final seniority list issued on 17-4-1993, the appellants had not made any representation to the Department for any correction in their seniority numbers and the instant appeals submitted on 7-9-1993 were hit by limitation. Since the appeals have no locus standi and these should be dismissed accordingly.
4. Upon an observation that when the recruitment rules provided 50%: 50% appointment by promotion and direct recruitment of the Stenographers, how this was justifiable and correct that the appointment/promotion of the appellants as Stenographers had been made w.e.f. 30-5- 1975/3-2-1978 and no promotion vacancy had become available till March 1986 i.e. During the past period of 8 years? This was not understood and hard to believe. The representative and the learned counsel for the respondent-Department could not give a satisfactory answer, but they promised to supply a written statement regarding appointment of direct and promotee Stenographers indicating their dates of regular appointments and promotions. The information and the list supplied by the Department did not clearly mention the dates, break up of appointments of all the appellants and private respondents and the dates of promotion/direct vacancies becoming available to show/support their regular appointments to the said posts. But some information had been supplied by theprivate respondent M/s. Asghar Ali and M. Afzal on 4-11-1993, wherein they had clarified that a promotion vacancy in respect of the seniority number of the appellant (Muhammad Ramzan) had occurred w.e.f. 24-10-1982 and for seniority number of the other appellant (Azhar Hamid) with effect from 30-5-1984. But they had been promoted on regular basis w.e.f. 10-3-1980. Para. 3 from their clarification/rejoinder submitted on 4-11-1993 is reproduced below:- ---3.The appellant Muhammad Ramzan Malik and Azhar Hameed were regularised as Steno typists on 1-6-1975 and 29-12-1975 respectively. Since they were working as Stenographers against vacant/leave vacancy of direct quota, therefore, they had to be regularised as and when the post of promotion quota could have been available. Since posts against promotion quota were available on 10-3-1982 and 3-5-1984, the appellants were regularised accordingly and could not be given regularisation because if the appellants would have been regularisation the senior to them would have become junior. Therefore, Serial Nos. 11 and 12 should be directly affected, as such the appellants were regularised subsequent to the regularisation of Serial Nos. 11 and 12."
5. It was quite clear that the appellants were to be given seniority/promotion w.e.f. 10-3-1982 and 30-5-1984 respectively; but intentionally through office mistake, they had been given seniority and promotion w.e.f. 10-3-1986 with the clear indication that the direct appointees at least respondents 11 and 12 would become junior to appellants. This office mistake/mala fide was established in the said clarification/rejoinder submitted by respondents Asghar and Afzal on 4-11-1993. The respondent-Department had also indicated the Stenographers from Serial Nos. 14, 16 to 22 i.e. M/s. Aslam, Azeem, Ashraf, Riaz Arshad, Masood, Aziz and Waheed had resigned, but no date of acceptance of their resignations had been indicated in the list. This should have been done by the respondent Ministry to show/determine the fall of promotion/direct regular vacancies for accommodating at least the appellants on regular basis. It looked that correct information had been suppressed.
6. Further from preceding paras, it was not understood how regular promotion vacancies for M/s. Ramzan and Azhar Hamid had been shown becoming available with effect from 10-3-1982 and 15- 5-1984 -respectively, when in between the appellants Ramzan (Sl. 15) and Azhar (SI. 23), all other incumbents/colleagues (Serials 14 and 16 to 22) had resigned giving rise to assess that promotion vacancies for M/s Ramzan and Azhar should have become available much earlier than 24-10-1982 and 15-10-1984 respectively. This list dated 4-11-1993 supplied by the private Respondents M/s Asghar and Afzal neither gave a correct information regarding fall of regular vacancies, nor it was authenticated by a representative of the Ministry, as none was available. However, in accordance with the seniority list and proposed adjustment of Stenographers, as circulated by the Ministry on 9-12-1981 M/s Ramzan and Azhar Hamid, the appellants had been shown accommodated against regular vacancies adjustment w.e.f. 3-2-1978 and 10-8-1978 respectively and this information should be the basis for reckoning their inter se seniorities.
7. Under the aforementioned circumstances, after examination of the record and hearing the parties, we find that the promotion vacancies had become available w.e.f. 3-2-1978 and 10-8-1978 and not w.e.f 10-3-1986 for reckoning the inter sc seniority of the appellants. We accordingly accept both the appeals to the extent that the seniority of the appellants as regular promotee Stenographers shall reckon with effect from 3-2-1978 and 10-8-1978 respectively No order for costs.
'" ``