ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---The facts of this appeal are that , the appellant Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed joined as Inspector, Income-tax on 23-1-1965. He qualified the departmental examination held in April 1975 and was promoted as Assistant Income-tax Officer (AITO) on 25-8- -1981. In the meantime, the CBR vide Notification dated 6-1-1982 promoted 54 Inspectors as AITOs with retrospective effect, but in the said Notification the name of the appellant was not included.
The appellant made representation on 20-2-1982 that his seniority may be reckoned with the batch who were promoted earlier vide CBR Notification dated 19-7-1975 as their services were regularised. Subsequently, the CBR revised its earlier Notification dated 6-1-1982 by its Notification dated 23-6-1986 whereunder the promotions of 54 Inspectors was to take effect from the date of issue of SRO-905(I)/81 viz. 13-8--1981. A provisional seniority list of the AITOs as on 1-2-1982 was issued and the name of the appellant appeared at S.No. 117. The appellant made a representation on 20-6-1991 wherein he requested for fixation of seniority in the cadre of AITOs along with the batch of Inspectors promoted on 19-7-1975. His request was accepted and his seniority in B-16 was refixed at S.No. 61-A above Mr. S. Rizwan Ali by the CBR vide letter dated 22-2-1992 addressed to Income Tax, Karachi. The appellant made representation on 1-3-1992 for ante-dation of his promotion m B-16 and B-1 7. This representation was processed by the CBR and objections were invited from the affected persons. However, the CBR, after considering the matter withdrew its letter dated 22-2-1992 vide letter dated 9-1-1993, on the ground that his 'earlier representation was time- barred and he was accordingly informed vide letter dated 18-1-1993. Being aggrieved with this order, the appellant preferred departmental appeal (copy not filed), but the same was rejected by the CBR by-order dated 6-7-1993, communicated to him on 2-8--1993. He then filed this appeal on 26-8-1993.
2. The respondents have filed comments in which it is stated that the appeal is not maintainable on facts and law. On merits, it has been stated that under the rules, a person who fails to pass the departmental examination of AITO within prescribed period of two years of his appointment, his seniority was to reckon from the date of his having qualified the said examination and since the appellant passed the said examination after 1-1-1975, he lost his seniority as Inspector and could not be promoted as AITO over and above his juniors who had passed the requisite examination earlier than the appellant. As regards withdrawal of the order whereunder he was assigned seniority retrospectively, it has been averred that on representations made by the persons who were promoted earlier than the appellant as AITO and had to reckon seniority over the appellant, order was withdrawn by the competent Authority as earlier order was a void order. At the time of hearing Mr. Niaz Ahmed Khan, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents reiterated the submissions made in the comments and 'submitted that the appeal is time-- barred and also fails on the point of non-joinder of necessary parties.
3. The cause of action accrued to the appellant-when certain Inspectors were promoted as ATTO by the CBR vide Notification dated 19-7-1975, but he for the first time made representation 6n 20-2- 1992. The CBR further promoted 54 Inspectors as AITOs vide Notification dated 6-1-1982 retrospectively. He kept quiet. A provisional seniority list of the AITOs was issued on 1-2-1982 and the appellant was placed at S.No. 117, but he agitated that his seniority as Inspector be fixed with the batch of 1975. It follows that the appellant is asking for fixation of his seniority with the batch of 1975 and filed this appeal in the year 1993 after 18 years. Under section 22 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, right of appeal has been provided to the civil servants and that is to be made within thirty days of the adverse order. Section 4(1) deals with the appeals to Tribunals, and proviso (a) thereof provides that where an appeal, review or representation to a departmental authority is provided under the Civil Servants Ordinance, 1973, or any rule against any such order, no appeal shall lie to a Tribunal unless the aggrieved civil servant has preferred an appeal or application for review or representation to such departmental authority and a period of ninety days has elapsed from the date on which such appeal, application or representation was so preferred. There being no provision for successive representations. The appellant after, filing the first representation dated 20-2-1982 should have come to the Tribunal after the statutory waiting period of 90 days as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kadir Bux v. Province of Sindh, reported in 1982 SCM R 582, and in these circumstances, the appeal is patently. He has not filed application for condonation of delay. However, the appellant has tried to get the benefit of the letter of CBR dated 6-7-1993 whereby his so-called appeal is said to have been rejected, but this letter will have to be read in conjunction with the CBR letter dated 9-2-1993 whereunder the earlier order of 22-1-1992 was withdrawn which related to grant of seniority to the appellant with the batch of 1975, and the representations so filed were considered as time-barred and rejected. The appeal is clearly barred by time and there being no application for condonation of delay, such, a long delay is not condonable.
4. There is another legal point that the appellant through this appeal wants seniority retrospectively against certain persons, but those persons have not been made party to this appeal as required under Rule 7 of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974 and this lacuna is fatal.
5. On merits also, the appellant has no case to succeed. Under the rules, he was to qualify the AITO departmental examination within two years of his appointment but since he qualified that examination after 1-1-1975 and as such lost his seniority as Inspector in comparison to others who had qualified examination and promoted earlier, and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1991 SCM R 1872 (Muhammad Nabi v. Secretary, Establishment Division) the persons promoted earlier were allowed seniority over the persons who could not be promoted, and the appellant could not compete with them.
6. For the reasons recorded, the appeal fails on the points of law and facts, and is accordingly dismissed with costs.