' This judgment will also dispose of the connected Writ Petition No,5489-91 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the petitions.
2. Ch. Mehdi Khan and S. Tasawar Hussain petitioners joined the Communication and Works Department, Government of Punjab as Sub-Engineers in Grade-11 on 18-12-1968 and 13-12-1966 respectively. The posts of Sub-Engineers, it is stated, were upgraded to NPS-16 and with a view to fill the upgraded posts, Punjab (Buildings and Highways) Sub-Engineers Professional Examination Rules, 1977 were framed and promulgated. Rule 3(1) of these rules provided that the posts of Sub- Engineers in NPS-16 shall be filled on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 laid down that no Sub-Engineer shall be eligible for being placed in NPS-16 unless he had at least ten years service in the department as a Sub-Engineer in lower scale and had passed the examination prescribed by the Rules. Sub-rule (3) of rule 3 provided that in case any Sub-Engineer failed to get placed in higher pay scale as mentioned in sub-rule (2) on account of not having passed the professional examination and his junior was placed in NPS-16, the former shall not, on passing the examination subsequently, have any claim for the post of NPS-16 in preference to his aforesaid junior and shall have to wait for selection against subsequent vacancies under Rule 4, the Sub- Engineers, Professional Examination was to comprise written papers and viva voce examination.
Rule 5 provided that the examination shall be held twice a year on the dates to be fixed by the competent Authority.
3. Case of the petitioners is that they appeared in the professional examination under the aforementioned rules and qualified it oij 10-10-1983 and on the same date, they were placed in BS-
16. They, therefore, superseded those Sub-Engineers who though senior in Grade-11 but had not been placed in Grade-16. It was further submitted that on 14-12-1985, Punjab Communication and Works Department (Engineering Posts Qualification and Conditions for Recruitment) Rules, 1985 were promulgated whereby 20% posts of Assistant Engineers (Grade-17) were reserved for promotion from amongst the Sub-Engineers in Grade-16 with 10 years service on basis of seniority- cum-fitness.
4. Contention of the petitioners was that they became eligible to be considered for promotion to the next higher grade, i.e, BS-17 as soon as the posts of Assistant Engineer S.D.O. In BS-17 became available but the departmental authorities without preparing any seniority list of Sub-Engineers in Grade-16 and without considering the petitions proceeded to promote the Sub-Engineers who were placed in Grade-16 after the petitions. It was contended that respondents Nos.2 to 7 in Writ Petition No,5509-S-91 who were awarded BS-16 long after the petitioners and were thus junior to them in BS-16 were promoted as Assistant Engineers in BS-17 but the petitioners were ignored and they were not even considered for promotion. It was pointed out by the petitioners that a seniority list of Sub-Engineers of Grade-16 on the basis of continuous officiation in the said Grade was drawn up by the departmental authorities and produced before the Rawalpindi Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No,101-S of 1990 but this list was described as provisional and no final seniority list was ever prepared. Nonetheless, the Departmental Authorities made promotions to the post of Assistant Engineers on the basis of seniority of the officers in Grade-11.
5. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed the Constitutional petitions praying that they be declared eligible to be considered for promotion as Assistant Engineers and the erratic promotions of the persons junior to them be declared as illegal and the petitioners be considered for promotion from the date they became eligible to hold the higher posts of Assistant Engineer. It was further prayed that respondents be directed to maintain a separate seniority for the Sub-Engineers placed in BS- 16.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Advocate-General for the official respondents and the counsel appearing for private respondents. Grievance of the petitioners essentially arises from non-determination of inter se seniority of Sub-Engineers placed in BS-16. This grievance is no more available to them because the Section Officer of the concerned department made a statement in this Court that authorities had prepared a final seniority list of Sub-Engineers of Grade-16 which he placed on the record of the connected Writ Petition No,1189 of 1993 and further pointed out that the petitioners in that writ petition had also challenged the list in question before the Service Tribunal. Ch. Mehdi Khan petitioner is also stated to have filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal to challenge the said seniority list. Needless to observe that law is fairly well-settled that the disputes relating to the seniority can only be raised before the Service Tribunal which has exclusive jurisdiction in such matters by virtue of Article 212 of the Constitution.
As regards the prayer that petitioners be declared eligible to be considered for promotion as Assistant Engineers in preference to those Sub-Engineers who were placed in Grade-16 later than the petitioners, suffice it to observe that since the promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer is admittedly to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness, petitioners can agitate their claim before the relevant authorities after the dispute with respect to the seniority is finally decided by the Service Tribunal.
' In the aforesaid view of the matter, no case is made out for interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction, and both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.