1. ' MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).---This appeal arose from the dispute over seniority between the appellant, Mst. Zarina Akhtar and private respondent Mrs. Tahmina Katpar. The appellant is a Tutor Sister (BPS-17) and claims to be senior to the private respondent who is Nursing Superintendent (BPS-17). Despite her claim she was shown junior to the said private respondent in the combined seniority list of Nursing Superintendent (BPS-17) and Tutor Sister, (BPS-17) issued on the 18th May, 1994; reflecting the seniority position as stood on 31-12-1993. Aggrieved by the said seniority list. The appellant preferred departmental appeal to the Chief Secretary on 18-5-1994. After waiting for decision thereon for the statutory period, the appellant has come in the present appeal, seeking the necessary rectification in the impugned seniority list.
2. ' The appellant's case, as disclosed in her memo. Of appeal, is that in the first instance she joined as Staff Nurse on 28-11-1974. She was subsequently promoted on regular basis, first as Nursing Sister (BPS-16) in August, 1985 and then as Tutor Sister (BPS-17) on 10th December, 1985. After her appointment as Tutor Sister, the seniority list of Nursing Superintendents (BPS-17) and Tutor Sister (BPS-17) showing their seniority as stood on 31-12-1992 was issued. In the said seniority list the appellant was assigned seniority at S.No, 6 and the name of the said private respondent appeared at S.No,
13. Somehow the above seniority list was followed by Provisional Seniority List issued on 20- 11-1993. It also reflected the seniority position of the parties as it stood on 31-12-1992, but this time the name of the said private respondent was placed at S.No, 2 above the name of the appellant at S.No,
7. As soon as the appellant came to know about the issuance of the aforesaid provisional seniority list, she filed her objections. In the impugned seniority list which was obviously issued after disposal of the appellant's objections, her grievance was partly redressed and she was placed at S.No, 5, but the S.No, 2 assigned to the private respondent remained intact, and consequently the latter continued to remain senior to the appellant. Hence the present appeal which was filed as stated above on 15-9-1994.
3. ' We heard Mr. Muhammad Aqil Awan for the appellant, Mr. A.W. Katpar for the private respondent and the learned A.A.-G. For the official respondents. With the assistance of the said learned counsel, we also went through the relevant documents available in the case file.
4. ' As provided in rule 10(1) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975, hereinafter referred as the seniority rules, the seniority of a civil servant shall be reckoned from the date of his regular appointment. It is an admitted position that the appellant was promoted as Tutor Sister (BPS-17) on regular basis on 10-12-1985 whereas the promotion of the private respondent as Nursing Superintendent (BPS-17) on regular basis was made on 17-10-1985. Thus, the appellant, having entered the BPS-17 earlier than the private respondent, was prima facie senior to the latter in the said BPS. However, the private respondent's learned counsel took serious exception to the appellant's promotion to the BPS-17 which, in his opinion, was made in violation of the legal requirements and hence was illegal. In support of the contention, the learned counsel invited our reference to the Health Department's Notification, .Dated 25th June, 1983 which prescribed the eligibility for appointment to the post of Tutor Sister (Grade-17) as under:- "By promotion from amongst persons holding post of Assistant Tutor Sister (Grade-16) or Nursing Sister (Grade-16) possessing Diploma in Teaching and Diploma in Ward Administration with three years service as such."
5. ' The question arose if the appellant possessed the above prescribed qualifications at the time of her promotion as Tutor Sister (BPS-17). The perusal of two diploma certificates placed at the end of the case file would reveal that the appellant was awarded diploma in Ward Administration on 25th October, 1978 and diploma in Teaching and Administration on 27th October, 1979. She also admittedly held the post of Nursing Sister at the relevant time. But the objection of the private respondent's learned counsel was that she had not completed the required tenure of service (i.e, three years) in the lower post. He doubt the appellant's regular promotion to the lower post of Nursing Sister (BPS-16) was made in August 1985, about four months prior to her promotion to next higher grade post (BPS-17). In other words she had obviously not completed the prescribed period of three years' service in the lower post. But to meet this objection the appellant's learned counsel drew our attention to the precedent case reported as Federation of Pakistan v. Rais Khan (1993 SCMR 689) wherein the Supreme Court took the view that the period of ad hoc service would count for the purpose of appointment in the post for which any length of service in lower post was prescribed. In course of the arguments we were shown the Health and Social Welfare Department's Notification, dated 12th May, 1980 which clearly indicated that the appellant was appointed as Nursing Sister for the first time on ad hoc basis. Thus, the appellant had to her credit more than prescribed service of three years including of course some portion of that service on ad hoc basis.
6. She was therefore eligible for promotion to Grade-17 post of Tutor Sister. Consequently the objection raised by the private respondent's learned counsel was without any force.
7. ' Despite the above findings, we have noted with regret that the impugned seniority list was prepared in utter disregard of the seniority rules. Sub-rule (1) of rule 9.Of the seniority rules which lays down the mechanism for compilation of seniority list reads as under: "a(1) In each grade in a department there shall be a separate seniority list of a group of civil servants doing similar duties and performing similar functions and for whose appointment same qualifications and experience have been laid down."
8. ' On careful perusal of the impugned seniority list, it would be noticed that it did . Not satisfy the requirements of the above rule. Its very title was enough to show that two groups of civil servants have been lumped together in one seniority list. The title reads: "Combined seniority list of Nursing Superintendent (BPS-17) and Tutor Sister (BPS-17)". It was thus clear that one group of civil servants namely Nursing Superintendents have been combined with the other group of civil servants namely Tutor Sisters. Oblivious of the actual requirements to be kept in view for preparing the seniority list, the departmental authorities who have compiled the impugned seniority list seem to have focussed their attention only on the factor that both the above groups of civil servants belonged to one and the same BPS-17. It is here that they have erred in their thinking. The aforesaid rule 9(1) makes it perfectly clear that in any Government Department, there could be more than one group of civil servants in the same grade (BPS), and for every such group of civil servants separate seniority list has got to be prepared. The civil servants doing similar duties, performing similar functions and for whose appointment similar qualifications were prescribed have to be included in the same seniority list. No other group of civil servants doing different duties, performing different functions, having different qualifications for appointment could be part of the said seniority list. It was not denied at the bar that the duties and functions assigned to Nursing Superintendent and Tutor Sister were not identical. The Health Department's Notification filed as Annexure of the written statement filed on behalf of the official respondents prescribed the method and qualifications for filling the above two posts. The said Notification clearly indicates that post of Nursing Superintendent is filled by promotion from amongst persons holding posts of Assistant Nursing Superintendent, Matron or Assistant Matron Grade-16 with three years service in the said post or from amongst Nursing Sister with three years service in such post and possessing diploma in Ward Administration and diploma in teaching. On the other hand, the appointment to the post of Tutor Sister is ' made by promotion from amongst Assistant Tutor Sister with three years service in that post and possessing diploma in teaching and diploma in Ward Administration. Apart from above, the said two posts carry different so nomenclature: one is called Nursing Superintendent and the other is called Tutor Sister. Had they been assigned similar duties and functions and the holders thereof possessing the same qualifications for their appointment they would have never been given different names. So, the very difference in their names is clear indicator that not only their duties and functions are different but the method and qualifications prescribed for filling the said posts are different.
9. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that since the impugned seniority list has not been prepared in keeping with the seniority rules, it cannot be upheld. It has to be recast either by framing two separate seniority lists: one for Nursing Superintendents (BPS-17) and the other for Tutor Sisters (BPS-17), or in the alternative two separate sections be inserted in one list: one section comprising the posts of Nursing Superintendents (BPS-17) and the, other including the posts of Tutor Sisters (BPS-17). Consequent upon preparation of two separate seniority lists as mentioned above, the names of the appellant and the private respondent would figure in different seniority lists and as such the dispute between them over the seniority would disappear. Accordingly we hold that since the appellant and the said private respondents belonged to different cadres for which separate seniority lists were to be prepared; there existed no dispute of seniority between them and as such the appellant had no cause of action to file this appeal which is disposed as such with no order as to costs.