RANA RIFAT SAEED (MEMBER): --As per brief history of the case, the appellant, Muhammad Ramzan and respondent No3 (Matloob Hussain) alongwith other colleagues i.e. Messrs Muhammad Siddiq and Ashraf Ali had been promoted as Deputy Director (B-18) w.e.f. The dates indicated below:-- (i)Muhammad Siddiq promoted as DD with effect from 31-8-1976.
(ii) Ashraf Ali promoted as DD with effect from 31-8-1976.
(iii) Matloob Hussain respondent No. 3 appointed/promoted as DD on ad hoc/temporary basis with effect from 28-10-1976
(iv) Muhammad Ramzan (appellant) appointed through FPSC as DD with effect from 20-1-1987
2. There were three posts of Deputy Directors (B-18) during 1973. According to the recruitment rules 50% of the posts were to be filled in by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment through the FPSC.
Therefore, two posts had been allocated to promotion and one to direct recruitment and following incumbents had been promoted/appointed by the respondent-- department.
(i) Muhammad Siddiq promoted as DD w.e.f. 31-8-1976.
(ii) Ashraf Ali promoted as DD. w.e.f. 31-8-1976.
(iii) Matloob Hussain (respondent No.3) appointed/promoted as DD with effect from 28-10-1976 on ad hoc/temporary basis against the post meant for direct recuritment.
3. M. Siddiq had retired on 20-7-1980 and vacancy caused by his retirement (which was 4th vacancy of Deputy Director in sequence meant for roster for sake of making promotion and direct recruitments) was to go to direct recruitment, but no appointment\ promotion had been effected by the Department. A new post of Deputy Director had been created by the Department w.e.f.10-10- 1984 and this had become 5th vacancy in sequence for purposes of roster for promotion/direct recruitment. As such by the end of 1984, there was a sanctioned strength of 4 posts of Deputy Directors in the Department but 5 vacancies of Deputy Directors for purposes of the roster. The respondent department keeping in view the recruitment rules i.e. 50% for promotion and 50% for direct recruitment, had then allocated three vacancies for promotion and two for direct recruitment and as a result of that the third officer i.e. Respondent 3 (Matloob Hussain) had been accommodated/adjusted during 1984 against the third vacancy meant for promotion.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant had pleaded that there were in all 4 posts of Deputy Directors by the end of 1984 and 2 were to go for promotion and 2 for direct recruits. As such the third officer i.e. Respondent 3 could not be promoted on regular basis against the post meant for direct recruitment. His contention was that till the direct recruitment of the appellant as Deputy Director w.e.f. 20-1-1987, there had never been a 5th post available to accommodate/adjust the promotion of respondent 3 against the promotion vacancy. As such he had all along been and till the arrival of appellant in the Department during January 1987 had been holding a direct post and his appointment/promotion could not be treated as regular but ad hoc, as it was against a direct post.
5. The Department had circulated a provisional seniority list on 27-9-1989, wherein respondent 3 had been shown senior to the appellant, whereas he was to be placed below the appellant. The appellant had made a departmental representation on 9-10-1989, but there was no response. Later on Department had issued final seniority list on 15-1-1991, wherein again respondent 3 was shown above the appellant who had again made a representation/appeal to the Prime Minister on 15-2- 1992 and finally submitted the instant appeal to the FST on 14-6-1992 with the following prayer.
"That the appeal may kindly be accepted, the appellant may be held to be senior to respondent No.3 and impugned seniority list may be ordered to be corrected by showing the appellant senior to respondent No.3 with all consequential benefits."
6. The learned counsel and the representative of the respondent department had brought out at Bar that primarily appellant had no case of seniority over the respondent No.3; because he had been continuing as Deputy Director from 1976 and this position stood regularised during 1984 i.e. Much earlier than the arrival of the appellant in the Department during 1987. His appeal was thus incompetent and should be dismissed on that very account. They had mentioned that even on merits the appellant had no cause of grievance, because during 1973 there were three posts of Deputy Director and following officers had been promoted/appointed.
(i) Muhammad Siddiq promoted as DD with effect from 31-8-1976.
(ii) Ashraf Ali promoted as DD with effect from 31-8-1976.
(iii) Matloob Hussain (respondent No.3) appointed/promoted as DD with effect from 28-10-1976 against direct post.
After retirement of Muhammad Siddiq during 1980, 4th vacancy in sequence bad been caused and after creation of new post of Deputy Director during 1984 i.e. 4th post and 5th vacancy in sequence had become available. Precisely to say that although there were four sanctioned posts of Deputy Directors by the end of 1984, but lately the 4th newly-created post had given rise to 5th vacancy to be filled in accordance with the rules. As such according to the rules by the end of 1984, 3 out of 5 vacancies were to be allocated to promotion and the remaining 2 vacancies to be allocated to direct recruitment. Evidently since 2 vacancies had already been allocated to promotion during 1976 and the 3rd vacancy for promotion (which had become available by the end of 1984) had accommodated/adjusted the respondent 3 for regular promotion as Deputy Director. The respondent-department had also referred the matter to the Establishment division on two occasions for obtaining advice which they had furnished vide their O.Ms. Dated 7-3-1991 and 11-5- 1992 and in pursuance of the advice the respondent department had accordingly adjusted respondent 3 (Matloob Hussain) against 3rd vacancy and placed him correctly in the seniority list.
Therefore, the plea of the appellant that respondent 3 had occupied a direct vacancy and was thus an ad hoc/not a regular promotee as Deputy Director before his joining the Department during 1987, did not hold good and the appeal be dismissed being devoid of any merit and being incompetent.
7. Under the aforementioned facts and averments made at Bar, we find that respondent No3 (Matloob Hussain) had, in accordance with the relevant rules, occupied the vacancy meant for promotion in 1984 i.e. Much earlier than the joining/arrival of the appellant in the department during 1987. The appeal is, therefore, devoid of any merit, misconceived and incompetent and is accordingly dismissed.
8. No order for costs. Parties-be informed.