IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 15-8- 1994 of the Federal Service Tribunal whereby the appeal filed by him was dismissed in limine.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner and seven others were appointed as Graduate Assistant Engineers (B/R) gazetted class II on 12-8-1968. Five out of them qualified the departmental examination and after having been cleared by the D.P.C. On completion of probation, were appointed/promoted as Assistant Executive Engineers on 15-3-1971. The petitioner although cleared the departmental examination on 28-11-1970 could not be so promoted as no D.P.C. Was held thereafter till 17-5-1971 when the Government took a policy decision whereby the post of Graduate Assistant Engineer was redesignated as Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from that date or the date of appointment, if later, contained in Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Defence Letter No, 1441/1/4/E1D/2711/D3A/7 dated 25-7-1975, which reads thus:-- Subject: REDESIGNATION OF GRADUATE ASSISTANT ENGINEERS OF THE MES AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEERS Sir,.
I am directed to convey the sanction of the President to the redesignation of the following Graduate Assistant Engineers of the MES as Assistant Executive Engineers with effect from the date shown against each in the existing vacancies in order to allow them Class I Status with effect from the 17th May, 1971 or the date of appointment, if later, under the provisions of the Establishment Division's Office Memorandum No,3/2/17-D1, dated the 17th May, 1971, 9th March, 1972 and the 9th June, 1973:--
1. 8460540 Mr. Humayun Sadiq Bhatty AE B/R 17-5-1971
2. 8460537 Mr. Ayaz Ahmed Qureshi AE B/R 17-5-1971
3. 8460542 Mr. Anwar ul Haque Arain AE B/R 17-5-1971
4. 8460539 Mr. Yosuf Ali AE B/R 17-5-1971
5. 8460557 Mr. Bashir Ahmed Malik (Promoted A/XEN w,e,f. 10- 12-1971)AE B/R 17-5-1971
6. 8460559 Mr. Muhammad Akmal Hussain AE B/R 17-5-1971
7. 8460561 Mr. Muhammad Khalid Hafeez AE B/R 17-5-1971
8. 8460566 Mr. Ajaz Oslum Khallel (Promoted A/XEN w,e,f. 10- 12-1971)AE B/R 17-5-1971
9. 8460565 Mr. Muslim Abbas Khan AE B/R 17-5-1971 10.8460564 Mr. Aziz-ur-Rahman AE B/R 17-5-1971
11. 8460567 Mr. Muhammad Iqbal AE B/R 17-5-1971 12.8460593 Mr. Muhammad Iqbal AE B/R 9-10-1971 13.8460594 Mr. Mansoor Ahmed AE B/R 9-10-1971 14.8470007 Mr.Islam-ud-Din AE B/R 18-12-1971 15.8470001 Mr. Sardar Khan AE B/R 17-11-1971 16.8470006 Mr. Muhammad Siddiqul AE B/R 18-11-1971 17.8470005 Mr. Hafiz Muhammad Yousaf AE B/R 23-12- 1971 18.8470021 Mr. Khawaja-Zia-ud-Din Jahangir AE B/R 29-1-1972 19.8470015 Mr. Muhammad Ajmal AE B/R 13-11-1971 20.8470002 Mr. Muhammad Aziz Malik AE B/R ?-12-1971 21.8470019 Mr. Malik Mumtaz Ahmed AE B/R 20-12- 1971 22.8470017 Mr. Syed Zahoor Hussain Shah AE B/R 17-1-1972 23.8470012 Mr. Mahboob Khan AE B/R 1-1-1972 24.8470010 Mr. Javed Ilahi AEs E/M AE B/R 24-12- 1971 25.8460560 Mr. Manzoor Ahmed Butt AE B/R 17-5-1971 26.8460590 Mr. S.M.M. Mehdi Jaffari AE E/M 12-8-1971 27.8460580 Mr. Niaz Ali Asad AE E/M 23-6-1971 28.8460591 Mr. Akhtar Ali AE E/M 4-10-1971 29.8460582 Mr. Safdar Ali Shah AE E/M 18-6-1971 30.8460581 Mr. Nasser Akhtar Shaffai AE E/M 11-6-1971 31.8460584 Mr. Sajjad Akbar AE E/M 17-7-1971 32.8470027 Mr. Syed Muhammad Akhtar AE E/M 20-3- 1972 33.8460589 Mr. Zubair Khan Lodhi AE E/M 28-6-1971 34.8470016 Mr. Ashiq Hussain AE E/M 16-11-1971
2. All the aforesaid Assistant Engineers after redesignation as Assistant Executive Engineers will, however, rank junior to all the existing Assistant Executive Officers regardless of their date of appointment.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed by way of redesignation of his post as Assistant Executive Engineer w,e,f. 17-5-1971 whereas respondents Nos.4 to 14 were appointed directly as Assistant Executive Engineers on a later date, therefore, they should rank junior to him in terms of the letter in question. It was vehemently argued that notwithstanding the fact that respondents Nos.4 to 14 were directly appointed as Assistant Executive Engineers and the petitioner was appointed in consequence of redesignation of the post, the respondents would rank junior to him, in that, the respondents as well as the petitioner were existing employees on the issuance of the above letter, therefore, the petitioner being inducted as Assistant Executive Engineer earlier will rank senior to respondents Nos.4 to 14 who were appointed later.
4. The controversy raised herein turns on the true scope of the letter dated 25-7-1975. The subject of the letter is "Redesignation of Graduate Assistant Engineers of the MES as Assistant Executive Engineers". It deals with two-fold matters: First, redesignation of Graduate Assistant Engineers as Assistant Executive Engineers in order to allow them Class I status with effect from 17-5-1971 or the date of their appointment, and secondly, with the method of determination of their seniority inter se the existing Assistant Executive Officers. Needless to say that the heading/subject of a document plays an important part in its interpretation and construction and helps in ascertaining the object sought to be accomplished, yet the same by itself is not necessarily a part of the document but a name given to it by the maker. It is also an established rule that in construing a document one has to read it as a whole and not by picking and chosing a particular paragraph or portion thereof.
5. Para. 2 of the letter in question, therefore, is to be read in conjunction with the remaining part of the document. The letter when read as a whole leaves no manner of doubt that the phrase "all the existing Assistant Executive Officers regardless of their date of appointment" relates to the existing Assistant Executive Engineers other than those mentioned in para. 1 of the letter, and that there were in the field two sets of rules one relating to determination of seniority of Assistant Executive Engineers appointed in consequence of redesignation of the post and the other of the Assistant Executive Officers appointed otherwise. The seniority of each category so determined in the light of the policy decision reflected in the letter presented no conflict and therefore it had necessarily to be resolved by a reference to the letter itself which has been relied upon by the petitioner himself to claim benefit of seniority over respondents Nos.4 to 14. The opening part of the letter deals with the redesignation/promotion of the officers including the petitioner who are specifically so named therein and not with respondents Nos.4 to 14. The phrase 'with effect the 17th May 1971 or the date of appointment, if later, refers to appointment of the persons mentioned in the letter alone who have been promoted/redesignated from the post of Graduate Assistant Engineer to that of Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from 17-5-1971 or on a later date as specified in the letter and not to the existing Assistant Executive Officers. Thus visualized, construction of the letter dated 25-7-1975 adopted by the learned tribunal would appear to be in accordance with the letter and spirit of the principles of seniority enshrined therein.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner next placed reliance on S.S. Qureshi and 15 others v. The Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and 5 others (1985 SCM R 1953) and S.H.M. Rizvi and 5 others v.
Maqsood Ahmed and 6 others (PLD 1981 SC 612), to contend that the seniority list purported to be issued firstly in 1975 and secondly in 1989 ought to have been circulated to the officers concerned and their objections and representations invited and in the light thereof a final list ought to have been issued. It was urged that this was never done, in that, the seniority list has not yet been circulated, therefore, the petitioner's appeal before the Tribunal was wrongly dismissed on the erroneous assumption that it was time-barred. The above-quoted judgments are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. A finding of fact has been recorded by the tribunal that the petitioner was aware of his seniority position in July 1975 on the issuance of the letter dated 25-7-1975 when his post was redesingated and he was relegated in seniority to lower position as against his counterparts. The learned counsel for the petitioner frankly conceded before us that after redesingation of the post he has been performing his official functions as Assistant Executive Engineer. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that after a lapse of 18 years the relief sought by the petitioner for correction of the seniority list was time-barred. Reliance was also rightly placed by the learned Tribunal on judgment of this Court in the case of Chairman, PIAC v.
Nasim Malik (PLD 1990 SC 951) that when an appeal before the departmental authority was time- barred, the appeal before the Tribunal was also incompetent on that account.
In view of the above, we find no force in the petition, which is hereby dismissed. Leave is refused.