1. ' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---Civil Petition No, 252 of 1994 has been filed on behalf of the Federal Government through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad to call in question the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 13-2-1994 whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the service appeal of respondent No,1 (BA. Tabassum) and restored his seniority as determined in the final seniority list issued by the Department in 1990.
2. ' Respondent No,1 (BA. Tabassum) was assigned seniority at Serial No,5 in the seniority list which was issued by the Department in the year 1990. The learned Service Tribunal came to the conclusion that the seniority list issued by the Department was a final list against which no representation was made by any officer who were shown junior to respondent No,1. However, the said list was revised by the Department at its own in 1993 and in the comments filed before the learned Tribunal the Department took up the position that while determining the seniority of respondent No,1 in the list of PBS-19 Officers a mistake was committed whereby seniority of another officer of that grade namely, Mukhtar Ahmed Zahid, was overlooked. It was also mentioned in the comments that there was some irregularity in the promotion of respondent No,1 from Grade-16 to Grade-17 and from Grades-17 to 18, which was not noticed at the time of assigning seniority at Serial No,5 of the list issued in 1990. The learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to point out from the record before us any representation made by any of the officers shown junior to respondent No,1 in the gradation list of 1990 against assignment of seniority to respondent No,1 at Serial No,5 of the said list. The learned Tribunal therefore, rightly reached the conclusion that in the absence of representation against the assignment of seniority to respondent No,1 in the seniority list of 1990, the seniority of respondent No,1 could not be revised by the petitioners after lapse of about 3 years. We may also mention here that Muhammad Afzal Safvi who was one of the respondents before the Service Tribunal has also filed Civil Petition No,317 of 1994, challenging the order of Tribunal, mentioned above and has supported the petition filed by the Government. He also contends that the assignment of seniority to respondent No,1 in the gradation list of 1990 was wrong as he was senior to respondent No,1 while he was shown junior to him. However, when we enquired from Mr. Afzal whether he filed any representation against the seniority list issued by the petitioners in 1990, he admitted that he preferred no representation against the seniority list issued in 1990 in which he was shown junior to respondent No,l.
3. ' In these circumstances, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the Service Tribunal.
4. The petitions are without any merit and are, accordingly, dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused.