' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-The respondent joined service as Engineering Supervisor in pay scale No,12 on 21-1-1969 in the Telegraphs and Telephones Department. Five per cent. Of the posts of Assistant Engineer/SDO (pay scale No,16) in the Telegraph Engineering and Wireless Service were reserved for Technicians. These were to be filled in consultation with the Federal Public Service Commission.
On 28-9-1972 the Departmental Promotion Committee recommended the respondent for appointment as Assistant Engineer (SDO) against the said quota. However, the Federal Public Service Commissioner turned down its recommendation on the ground that the respondent could not be described as technician so as to avail of that quota. The respondent filed an appeal before the Commission but it was dismissed as barred by time. The matter rested at that. The respondent was appointed as probationary Assistant Divisional Engineer (pay scale No,17) by a notification issued on 29-12-1977.
2. On 8-2-1992 and later on 27-5-1992 the Department issued provisional seniority lists. On the advice of the Establishment Division that the respondent should be given seniority from the date of the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, his date of entry in the cadre of Assistant Engineers/SDOs (pay scale No,16) and in the cadre of Assistant Divisional Engineer (pay scale No,17) was shown as 28-9-1972, which was the date of the said recommendation. However, when it came to the notice of the Department that the recommendation had been turned down by the Federal Public Service Commission and the respondent had never been promoted against the quota reserved for the technicians, it by another notification issued on 22-9-1.992, withdrew the seniority lists of 8-2-1992 and 29-2-1992. The respondent til aggrieved by the notification of withdrawal and made a departmental' representation. When he failed to obtain a favorable response, he filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal accepted the appeal and set aside the notification of withdrawal with the following observations: "Under the aforementioned facts and after hearing the parties, we conclude that the seniority lists circulated by the Department on 8-2-1992 and 29-2-1992 and asking for observations, comments and objections up to 31-3-1992 had attained finality on 31-3-1992 and afterwards the Department could not withdraw the seniority list on 22-9-1992 without convincing reasons, grounds and justification for making necessary revision and corrections, etc."
' The Department has come in appeal by leave to this Court.
3. In the seniority lists of 8-2-1992 and 29-2-1992, the respondent was assigned position on the assumption that he had entered the cadre of Assistant Engineer/Sub-Divisional Officer and Assistant Divisional Engineer on 28-9-1972. This assumption was factually incorrect. As noticed above, under the relevant rules, the posts in the quota against which the respondent was claiming appointment were to be filled in consultation with the Federal Public Service Commission. It is not disputed that the Commission had turned down the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee in this regard and the respondent's appeal before the Commission also failed. It was not the case of the respondent that the competent authority had overruled the advice of the Commission or despite that advice had appointed him as Assistant Engineer/Sub Divisional Officer or as Assistant Divisional Engineer with effect from 29-8-1972. In the circumstances, the entries in the two seniority lists whereby the respondent was shown to have the cadres of Assistant Engineers/Sub Divisional Officers and Assistant Divisional Engineers on 28-9-1972 were without any foundation and the Department was competent to withdraw the lists which were based on an incorrect assumption. The view taken by the learned Tribunal that as there had been no representation against the provisional lists these stood finalized cannot be supported as the respondent could not take advantage of an error apparent on the very face of the record. There could not possibly be any estoppel against the Department which was under an obligation to prepare a correct seniority list in accordance with the rules. On his part the respondent could not claim seniority in a cadre from a date when he was not a member thereof.
4. For the reasons stated above we accept this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Tribunal and -uphold the departmental notification of withdrawal.