1. ' ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J.---This Constitution petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders passed by respondent No, 2 placing the respondent No,3 above the petitioner in the seniority list. Briefly the facts relevant for the purposes of this petition are that present petitioner and respondent No,3 were selected for appointment to the Post of Deputy Director, Co-ordination and Planning in the Sindh Arid Zone Development Authority hereinafter referred to as SAZDA vide recommendations made by the Selection Committee under the Chairmanship of Director-General with the Directors. According to this recommendation by the Selection Committee merit was awarded to the selectees as under:- 1.Sayed Ghulam Murtaza ShahHyderabad1st 2.Mr. Raza Muhammad BhattiLarkana 2nd 3.Mr. Imtiaz Ali Shah Badin 3rd 4.Mr. Ashfaq Hussain Shah Shikarpur4th 5.Mr. Inayatullah Agha Hyderabad5th 6.Mr. Abrar Ahmed Abdul QadirBadin 6th 7.Mr. Ali Bux Sanjrani Shikarpur7th 8.Mr. Muhammad Rafique Dadu 8th 9.Mr. Bashiruddin Qazi Hyderabad9th ' In consequence of the above recommendation appointment orders were issued to the selectees.
2. The petitioner has placed on record his appointment order issued on 16-6-1986. Paragraph 2 thereof shows that his seniority will be maintained in the relevant basic pay scale from the date of his joining service. This is also the case of the petitioner that he joined service on 17-6-1986 while the respondent No,3 joined service on 6-7-1986 and therefore he should rank junior to the petitioner. It is also an admitted position that on 24-4-1990 a letter was issued by the Deputy Director Administration of SAZDA showing the present seniority of the incumbents wherein the present petitioner was placed at No, 2 while the respondent No,3 was placed at No,
4. In consequence of this letter the respondent No, 3 appears to have made a representation. In the meanwhile the seniority list was also issued and circulated vide Letter No, DIR(ADMN)/PA/8/91/82, dated 17-7-1991. Thereafter, the Director Administration, SAZDA issued a further letter on 22-3-1992 vide No, DIR(ADMN)/SAZDA/Seniority/91/210, in this letter it was clarified that respondent No,3.
3. Stands senior to the petitioner by virtue of Rule 14(a) of the Rules of SAZDA Employees (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1991. Being aggrieved the petitioner has instituted this Constitutional petition seeking following relief.
4. "It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to declare the revised seniority whereby the petitioner has been placed below the respondent No,3 as illegal, incompetent without lawful authority and bad in law and further order that the seniority list of 1991 may be maintained and to pass any other order as deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."
5. ' We have heard Mr. Rasool Bux Unar learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Leghari appearing for respondent No, 1 and Mr. P.M. Amer, Advocate for respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
6. The main contention raised by Mr. Uner is that in the first instance the terms and conditions of the appointment of the petitioner would show that his seniority is to be counted from the date of his joining the service and therefore on the admitted facts he shall stand senior to the respondent No,3 and secondly that having been assigned such seniority, the subject stands closed and past and closed transactions cannot be subsequently reopened by the respondents on their whims. In support of his contention, learned counsel has referred to the case of Income-tax Officer, Central Circle II, Karachi and another v. Cement Agencies Ltd. (PLD 1969 SC 322). We are afraid that facts of this case are not attracted to the present case as in this case the question for consideration was with regard to "Escaped assessm ent and it was held that once a decision had been taken and the transaction was finalized the same could not have been reopened. The second case relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that of Pakistan, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi (PLD 1969 SC 407). This was a case of Government servant wherein it was held that authority competent to make order had power to undo it but the same could not have been withdrawn or rescinded once it had taken legal effect and certain rights were created in favour of any individual. In our view even this case would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as discussed hereunder.
7. ' In the present case, it is an admitted position that no service rules were available in the year 1986 for Sazda Employees and therefore it cannot be said if their services were protected or the terms and conditions thereof were secured under any law. It is also an admitted position that SAZDA is Body corporate and therefore its employees cannot be termed to be "civil servants". Thus, obviously they were to be governed by the Law of Master and Servant. The learned counsel of the petitioner has referred us to section 10 of the SAZDA Act, 1985 (Sindh Act No, II of 1985). Subsection (1) of section 10 provides that the terms and conditions of the servants shall be according to the rules that may be prescribed. He has also referred to section 29 of the same Act which provides that the Chairman, Members, Officers of the Authority shall be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The above two provisions do not bring the employees of the Authority on the same level as civil servant nor can they be said to be entitled to Constitutional safe guards unless there be some law protecting the terms and conditions of their services. The rules of service governing the employees of SAZDA were promulgated on 10-10-1991 and published in the Sindh Government Gazette Extraordinary on 28-4-1992. Rule 14 (a) of these Rules provides as under:- "(a) in the case of persons appointed by initial recruitment, in the order or merit assigned by the Selection Authority, and if such Authority is either not competent to assign such order of merit or has omitted to do so and is unable to overcome the omission for reasons beyond its control, the seniority shall be determined by the appointing authority: ' Provided that a person elected in earlier selection shall rank senior to a person selected in a later selection."
8. ' These rules are framed under the provisions of section 31 of the. Act which reads:-- "Government may make rule for carrying out the purposes of Act." Thus, these rules are statutory rules and have the force of law.
9. ' The other aspect of the case is that admittedly a letter was issued on 24-4-1990 which for the first time determined the seniority of the incumbents and in that letter the petitioner was placed at No,2 and the respondent No,3. At No,4. In the last Paragraph of this letter objections were invited from the incumbents. Again another letter was circulated on 17-7-1991 with a seniority list wherein the petitioner was placed at No,1 and the present respondent was placed at No,2. This letter also, in last paragraph, shows that the objections were invited from the incumbents if they had any such objection. It is obvious that in pursuance of these letters the respondent No,3 had submitted his objection and it was on his objection that order was passed in accordance with rule 14 (a) of the above said rules as well as the merit assigned by the Selection Committee. In these circumstances, it cannot be termed as a past and closed transaction but the same had been very much alive from the time the seniority was determined for the first time subject to objections of the incumbents.
10. ' Mr. Unar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once a seniority has been assigned to the petitioner the same could not have been withdrawn as certain legal rights were created. The learned counsel, however, is unable to show us any other law except the above referred to Sazda Act and Service rules whereunder the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioner were protected or secured in the year 1986 except the law of Master and Servant. The phrase "legal right" has been defined in the case of Government of East Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan and another (PLD 1962 (W.P.) Karachi 353) wherein it has been held that legal right means right recognized by law and capable of being enforced by power of State. Similarly in the case of Burmah Eastern LTD. v. Burmah Eastern Employees' Union and others (PLD 1967 Dacca 190) a Division Bench of the erstwhile Dacca High Court has held that character or status denotes a character or status conferred by law on an individual or a number of individuals viewed as a unit of society and not shared by the generality of the community but only by individuals placed in the same category of character. In these circumstances, and relying on the above said cases we are of the view that no legal right or legal character was conferred on the present petitioner in the year 1986. It may further be observed that it is an admitted position as is disclosed from the summary prepared for the Chief Minister by the Director-General of SAZDA that the present respondent No,3 was assigned first position on merit while the petitioner was assigned second position. It may be observed that it is within the exclusive prerogative of a Selection Committee or selection Board to determine and assign the merit to the selected candidates. No Court including Superior Courts will sit in judgment in appeal over such orders or selection made by the Selection Board or the Committee. It is not for the Courts to assume the role of Selection Board or Committee. Reliance may be placed on the case of A. Iqbal Qadri v. Federation of Pakistan and others (C.P. No, D-1545 of 1994), decided on 15- 8-1994) to which one of us (Mr. Justice Abdul Rahim Kazi) is a party. In this case a reference was further made to a judgment of the Indian Supreme Court in the case of Air Vice-Martial S.L. Chapra v. Union of India and another (1993 SUPP (4) SC Supreme Court cases 441) .
11. ' In view of above discussion we find no merit in the present petition which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.