MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ----The appellant, Shamim Fatima Zaidi; who is Head Mistress, Government Vocational School for Girls, Nawabshah has grievance against the seniority list of Mistresses (BPS-8) of Vocational Institutes/Schools for Women/Girls made public vide Letter NO.DTE/4/72/VOC/5139-73, dated 28-4-1993. Therefore, her prayer is that keeping in view her continuous appointment in BPS-5, BPS-6 and BPS-8 with effect from 14-1-1974, 2-8-1980 and 10-3- 1984 respectively, appropriate seniority be assigned to her in the impugned seniority list with consequential back benefits including her promotion to BPS-11 from the date the private respondents Nos. 3 to 16 were promoted to the said higher grads.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the appellant's case are as follows. To start with, the appellant was appointed as Junior Mistress (BPS-5) with effect from 14-1-1974. However she resigned from the said job on 30-6-1979. She was reappointed as Assistant Mistress (BPS-6) in the Directorate of Technical Education with effect from 2-8-1980. Her break in service from 30-6-1979 to 2-8-1980 was condoned, treating the- intervening period as leave without pay vide the Department's letter dated 17-10-1991. Meanwhile the appellant was appointed in the post of Head Mistress (BPS-8)
Government Vocational School for Girls, Nawabshah, under Women Division Programme with effect from 6-3-1984. The said appointment was conditional inasmuch as that it was on provisional basis, continuing until availability of funds. The seniority list of Assistant Mistresses (BPS-6) was published for the first time on 23-5-1984, wherein the appellant was rightly placed at S.No. 13. Thereafter provisional seniority list of Mistress (BPS-8) was circulated vide letter-dated 1-11-1987, and the appellant's name was rightly mentioned at S. No. 3. No objections were filed against the said seniority list. Despite that, another provisional seniority list was circulated vide letter-dated 15-11- 1989, of Mistresses (BPS-8) under Women Division Programme. In the said list the appellant's name was shown at S.No. 2. However, subsequent seniority lists circulated/published in 1990 and 1992 of Mistresses (BPS-8) of all the Vocational Institutes/Schools (Girls) in Sindh did not include the appellant's name nor the copies of the said lists were endorsed to her. As such she came to know about the said lists late in 1993 when she managed to secure copies thereof through private efforts.
Although the private respondents specified at S.Nos. 3 to 16 of memo of appeal were all junior to the appellant yet they were promoted from BPS-8 to BPS-11 and the appellant was never considered for such promotion. Ultimately seniority list of Mistress (BPS-8) of all Vocational Institutes/Schools (Women/Girls) was issued on 28th April, 1993 Where in the appellant's name appeared at the bottom of the list at S. No. 17 The appellant challenged the said list in her departmental appeal dated 12-5-1993 made to the Director, Technical Education but the same was undecided until after expiry of statutory period of 90 days and hence she has come in the present appeal before this Tribunal on 7-9-1993.
3. We carefully heard the arguments of the appellant's learned counsel and the learned A.A.-G. We also went through all the relevant record available in the case file. However, none of the private respondents turned up for arguments though two of them had filed their written statement indicating thereby their intention to contest the case.
4. As pointed out above, the appellant was dissatisfied with the seniority list of Mistresses (BPS-8) of Vocational Institutes/Schools for Women/Girls in Sindh, issued on 28th April, 1993 (hereinafter referred) as impugned seniority list. Before going into merits of the appellant's claim, we would like to dispose the preliminary objection of the learned Assistant Advocate-General, that the appeal was barred by limitation. According to him the appellant was actually aggrieved by seniority list issued on 13-4-1992 which related to Mistresses (BPS-8) of all Vocational Institutes/Schools (Women/Girls). He submitted that since appellant's name was missing from the said list. She had to wake up at that time for redressal of grievance as regards her seniority. But the only answer the appellant's learned counsel gave in this regard was that appellant was totally unaware about the issuance of that seniority list which came to her notice in 1993. Of course we were not impressed by this reply. The said seniority list was endorsed to all Principals/Head Mistresses of Government Vocational Institutes/Schools (Women/Girls) for information and circulation amongst the respective staff. We see no reason why the said list did not come to the appellant's notice. Surely no one was interested in withholding such information from her. Neither any such allegation has been made nor is there any material to give such indication. In ordinary course the appellant was expected to know about the issuance of the said list. Moreover, it is not difficult to understand the appellant's denying of the knowledge of the said seniority list. If she were to admit the knowledge of its issuance, her present appeal might be declared as time-barred for the reason that she did not take the timely action against the wrong done to her. Nevertheless fresh cause of action accrued to her when the impugned seniority list was made public on 28th April, 1993 Against that seniority list the Departmental Appeal filed on 12-5-1993 was obviously within time. The statutory period of 90 days after filing of the said appeal expired on 10-8-1993. Thus the present appeal which was filed on 7-9-1993 was within time. As such the objection of the learned A.A.-G. Was without force: Coming to -the merits of the appellant's case it may be noticed that the appellant's name appears at serial number 17 of the impugned seniority below the names of all the private respondents. The- determining factor of the seniority is the date of regular appointment. In this connection reference may be made to sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred as Seniority Rules). The said sub--rule reads as under:-- "(1)Subject to the provisions of rule 11, the seniority of a civil servant shall be reckoned from the date of his regular appointment."
5. In view of the above sub-rule, the date of regular appointment is regarded as date of entry in the relevant cadre, which in turn determines the seniority in that cadre. On careful perusal of the impugned seniority list, it would be seen that the date of regular appointment of each Mistress specified in the list is mentioned in column 7 thereof. According to the entries made in the impugned seniority list the date of the appellant's regular appointment is 1-7-1992 whereas the appointment of all the private respondents in BPS-8 were' regularized, earlier than the said date.
Consequently as per rule 10(1) hereinabove, they have been shown senior to the appellant. It is true that the appellant was inducted in the post of BPS-8 for the first time on 10-3-1984. The nature of her appointment in the said post can be ascertained from the appointment order, which reads as under: "Mst. Shamim Fatima Zaidi, Head Mistress, Government Vocational School for Girls, Naushero Feroz is hereby appointed as Mistress against the post of Head Mistress, Government Vocational School for Girls, Nawabshah under Women Division Programme with effect from 10-3-1984 on purely temporary basis at Rs.370 per month plus usual allowances as admissible under the rules in the Revised National Scale of Pay No.8 Le Rs. 370--16--514/18--640--22--750 on the following term and condition.
Her promotion will be on provisional basis and as long as the Women Division provide the funds this post will continue. In case funds are not provided by the Women Divisions she will be transferred back to her original post. "
6. Thus the appellant's appointment in the post of BPS-8 was purely temporary and on provisional basis depending upon the availability of funds to be provided by the Women Division (Federal Government). This has been admitted by the appellant herself in para. 4 of her memo of appeal. By no stretch of imagination her such appointment can be held as appointment on regular basis.
Moreover, her appointment by the aforesaid order appeared to have been made in ex-cadre post.
That is to say the post to which she was appointed was not included in her parent cadre. This is clear from the second para. Of the order which clearly shows that "In case funds are not provided by the Women Division, she will be transferred back to her original post". For these reasons we are of the view that the appellant's seniority in the cadre of BPS-8 cannot be reckoned from 10-3-1984, the date of her original appointment in that cadre. As disclosed in the impugned seniority list, the date of the appellant's regular appointment in the said cadre is 1-7-1992. Since this has been disputed by the appellant, the question would arise what was then the date of her regular appointment in cadre of BPS-8? When the learned counsel of the appellant was confronted with the above question, he was unable to give satisfactory reply. All what he submitted was that the appellant's appointment by aforementioned order was all along treated as regular appointment and, therefore, her seniority in the said cadre would be counted from the date of that order viz. 10- 3-1984. This argument is far from convincing. The leaned counsel has clearly overlooked the language in which the above order is couched: If the said order was treated as the order of appellant's regular appointment, there was no reason, at, least for the authorities who had so treated the order, to take a different stand, showing in. The impugned seniority list that the , appellant's appointment was regularized with effect from 1-7-1992.
7. In para. 11 of his memo of appeal, the appellant has taken general plea that all the private respondents are junior to her. But in her three representations; one dated 26-6-1992, second dated nil and third (Departmental appeal) dated 12-5-1993 all addressed to the Director, Technical Education, she has taken names of Naseem Akhtar and Shamim Fiaz as being junior to her. Neither of theft has figured in the impugned seniority list. Therefore, they have not been cited as respondents even in the memo of appeal and as such they are not party to his appeal. In the seniority list of lower cadre of Mistresses (BPS-6) issued on 28-8-1984, only the name of Shamim Fiaz is mentioned at S. No. 3 whereas appellant's name appears at S.No. 12 and S. No. 13 as stated by the appellant. She has not disputed the truth of the said seniority list as it is her own admission that her name is rightly and properly placed at her due place. As stated above Shamim Fiaz is shown senior to appellant. In any case the appellant has not disputed the date of regular appointment of any of the private respondents.
8. Apart from above the appellant's learned counsel referred us to two seniority lists of Mistress (BPS-8), one issued on 1-11-1987 and another made public on 15-11-1989 in support of the appellant's case. Both these lists were admittedly provisional seniority lists. But the learned counsel argued that since no objections were filed against the said lists by any party, they should be considered as final seniority lists. We are unable to accept such line of reasoning. The appellant has taken the above plea with regard to the aforesaid two seniority lists in paras. 7 and 8 of the memo of appeal. The truth of these paras. Has, however, been denied in the corresponding paras.
Of written statement. We have gone through, both the above two seniority lists. As for provisional seniority list issued on 15-I1-1987, it does not contain the name of the appellant. It is not correct that her name appears at S. No. 3 in the list. At the said S.No. The name of Mst. Shamim Akhtar Fiaz and not the name of the appellant (Shamim Fatima Zaidi) is mentioned. So far provisional seniority list issued on 15-11-1989 is concerned, only first page of the said list has been produced before us. No doubt the appellant's name appears at S. No. 2 but it has no column indicating the date of regular appointment of the Mistresses mentioned therein. Apart from the columns of name; qualifications, and date of birth, it has two other columns, one showing the date of entry in service and another about the date of the present post. Of course the appellant is shown to have entered service on 3- 8-1980 and inducted in the present post (BPS-8) on 6-3-1984. But the crucial date of regular appointment of the appellant in BPS-8 is missing. Moreover, the provisional seniority lists cannot be helpful in determining seniority until they are finalized. Neither final versions of the aforesaid two provisional seniority lists were issued nor any thing came out in black and white treating the said lists as final seniority lists.
9. For above reasons the appeal is without any substance and as such it is dismissed with no order as to costs. Before parting with the case we cannot help taking note of so-called "additional pleas" taken in the official written statement. They are nothing but uncalled for observations with regard to the appellant's moral reputation which, prima facie have no nexus with the appellant's case of seniority. The authorities concerned are well-advised to refrain from making such observations particularly when they do not any way improve their case.