' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioners in the abovementioned four petitions have sought leave to appeal against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 9/14-4-1994. By the impugned judgment, the learned Service Tribunal partly allowed four Service Appeals filed by private respondents in the above petitions, namely: Muhammad Rafique Malik, Abdul Rehman Memon, Anwar Ali Khan and Mrs. Rukhsana Tufail (hereinafter to be referred as the respondents) and declared Rule 5 introduced by the Government vide S.R.O. No, 1097(1)/93, dated 15-11-1993, as only prospective in operation which did not apply to the cases of respondents who were appointed on regular basis much before the introduction of Rule 5 ibid. ' In order to understand the present controversies in their true prospective, it is necessary to refer here some of the facts forming the background of these cases. Respondents were appointed directly as Vice-Principals (B-18) in Islamabad Model Colleges on 31-12-1983, 9-7-1989, 9-7-1989 and 21-1-1984 respectively on regular basis. Under the old rules, the seniority list of Vice-Principal was maintained separately. In 1993 a combined seniority list of persons working as Vice-Principal (B-18) and senior teachers (B-18) was prepared as a result of reorganization. The respondents challenged the joint seniority list before the Service Tribunal which was allowed by judgment dated 11-11-1993 and the Department was directed to maintain separate seniority list of Vice-Principals as was done up to 1992. The respondents were subsequently re-designated as Assistant Professors alongwith senior teachers who were also designated as Assistant Professors. The respondents once again approached the Service Tribunal with the grievance that although they were senior in B-18 and were drawing higher pay than the senior teachers who were not yet promoted on regular basis to B-18, but both were designated as Assistant Professors (B-18) and from amongst senior teachers (re-designated as Assistant Professors) some were given current charge as Principals (B- 19) ignoring respondents who were seniors to them. They also made a grievance that although they were appointed directly as Vice-Principals (B-18) on regular basis under 1983 and 1984 Rules, they have been subjected to re-interview/re-selection through Federal Public Service Commission (F.P.S.C.) in terms of Rule 5 introduced through S.R.O. No,1097(I)/93, dated 15-11-1993. The learned Tribunal disposed of the appeals as follows:- "11. There is no dispute that all the appellants were appointed as Vice-Principals in pursuance to open advertisement and after determining their suitability keeping in view their qualifications and experience etc., by the competent Authority, as prescribed under the Rules, and as such their appointments were deemed to be regular made in accordance with the prescribed rules. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the employees of the Islamabad Model Schools/Colleges were declared 'civil servants', and as such their terms and conditions were to be regulated under the provisions of Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the rules made thereunder. As a consequence thereof, the Ministry of Education issued a Notification No,SRO. 1097 (1)/93, dated 15th November, 1993. It is a common factor that rules are always made for the betterment and not to the detriment of its employees, as has been done in this case, whereby the appellants and other employees of the Model Institutions have been required to appear before the FPSC for regularisation of their services after adjudging their suitability of the posts they are holding, which is surprising as the appellants are working on regular basis since decades and when some of them are reaching their retirement age, and even working Principals they have been put to test by appearing before the FPSC. We are also afraid that in case some of such employees do not come to the yardstick of the FPSC, they might lose their jobs even as there is no guarantee or safeguard in the impugned notification dated 15th November, 1993, in this respect. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that Rule 5 of the SRO Notification dated 15th November, 1993, dated 15th November, 1993, is ultra vires and void, because it is a settled law that no rule can operate retrospectively but has to operate and apply to the cases prospectively, and is accordingly set aside and no Rule can be made detrimental to conditions of service which they are enjoying since years. It may also be observed that while arguing the appeals on behalf of the Ministry of Education, Mr. Muhammad Ismail, Assistant Educational Adviser, submitted that reference to FPSC of the cases is just a mere formality of the Commission. We are sorry we cannot expect such a statement on behalf of the Government because the FPSC is an independent and a Constitutional body and it is the discretion of the Commission to select or not to select or clear an employee, as the case may be, under the rules. This matter cannot be confined to this extent, but even the seniority of such employees shall have to be redetermined in accordance with the merit assigned by the FPSC, and in that case, the whole superstructure of 700 employees shall be disturbed. It was rightly argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that all this has been done just to frustrate the judgments of this Tribunal already delivered in the appeals filed by the appellants now before us. I, therefore, fully agree with the findings of my learned brother Mr. Rana Rifat Saeed, Member.
12. With regard to appellant and of Vice-Principals as Assistant Professor we may observe that their cases to be considered according to their seniority-cum-fitness and decision be taken within three months so that if aggrieved they could seek legal remedy."
' Mr Fazal Elahi Siddiqui the learned counsel for the petitioner in Civil Petition No, 287 of 1994 contended before us that the respondents having been allowed separate seniority in the cadre of Vice-Principal (B-18) at their own request by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 11-11-1993, they cannot now turn round and complain that they were not considered for promotion. According to Mr. Siddiqui, under rule 3 of the new promotion Rules for appointment in the Islamabad Model Colleges for Boys/Girls, there is no category of teachers as Vice-Principals for further promotion and therefore, respondents cannot be considered for further promotion along with petitioner in Petition No,287 of 1994. We would refrain from expressing any opinion on the above contention of Mr. Fazal Elahi Siddiqui, as the learned Tribunal has remanded this issue to the Department for determination in the light of the impugned decision in accordance with the existing Rules. The learned counsel for the Federation in Petitions Nos. 284, 285 and 286 of 1994 has challenged the order of learned Tribunal only to the extent it declared Rule 5 ibid, as ultra vires. It is not correct to say that Rule 5 has been declared ultra vires in its totality. A careful reading of impugned judgment would show that Rule 5 ibid has been declared inoperative only to the extent it purports to operate retrospectively. To this extent, the order of Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity. No case for interference is made out. The petitioners are accordingly, dismissed and leave is refused.