' NOOR MUHAMMAD MAGSI (MEMBER).---Appellant Mr. S. Saleem Raza Kazmi is working as Sub- Engineer for the last 15 years under the respondent Pak. P.W.D. His case is that under the rules, 33% of the Sub-Engineers (B-11) were to be placed in Selection Grade B-16 from amongst the persons having ten years' service and passed the Departmental Examination, and according to him, he fulfilled both the requirements but was not granted Selection Grade B-16 while his three juniors, named in the memo. Of appeal as respondents 4 to 6, were allowed, vide office order dated 24th March, 1992. Being aggrieved, the appellant made a representation but the same was rejected vide letter, dated 21-2-1995, communicated to him by letter, dated 28-3-1995. He then filed this appeal before the Tribunal.
2. We have heard the appellant. His contention is that according to the seniority list issued on 5-11- 1992 he was at S.No,179, while private respondents 4 to 6 were placed below his name, and as such he was senior to them. He contended that he had passed the Departmental Examination in September, 1990 and had 15 years' service at his credit, as against ten years, therefore, in all respects, he met the requirements provided in the rules for grant of Selection Grade B-16 against 33% quota of the Sub-Engineers, but in spite of his eligibility he has not been granted Selection Grade B-16 and injustice has been done to him.
3. The objections have been filed by the respondent department and it has been stated under the rules, Selection Grade B-16 is allowed to the Sub-Engineers having ten years and having passed the Departmental Examination. It has been stated that previously, 25% posts were to be placed Selection Grade B-16 but it was subsequently enhanced to 33%, and as such the total posts were 34 for placement in B-16. A meeting of the D.P.C. Was held on 10-3-1992 to consider the cases of the eligible persons and since respondents 4 to 6 had passed the departmental examination earlier in May, 1989 than the appellant who passed in September, 1990, were recommended for grant of selection grade and only 34 persons were granted Selection Grade B-16, but the appellant could not get his share due to want of vacancy.
4. The relevant provisions of Rules are contained in SRO.98(I)/92, dated 11th February, 1992, and read as under:-- "(2) The posts of Sub-Engineer (Civil) BPS-11 and Sub-Engineer (E/M) BPS-11 shall be filled by initial appointment: ' Provided that 33% of the posts of Sub-Engineer (BPS-11) separately of Civil and Electrical Mechanical cadres shall be placed in Selection Grade BPS-16. The Selection Grade posts shall be filled on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness from amongst the Sub-Engineers who have completed 10 years' service in the Department and have passed the prescribed Departmental Examination."
' From the above provisions of Rules, it is evident that the requirement for grant of Selection Grade in BPS-16 to the Sub-Engineers (B-11) is seniority-cumfitness, ten years' service and passing of the Departmental Examination. In the instant case, the appellant had fulfilled these requirements and being eligible for grant of Selection Grade B-16, his case was placed before the D.P.C. For consideration, but he was not granted selection grade as there were only 34 posts available at the relevant time, and the appellant was not granted selection grade. According to the department, as he had passed the Departmental Examination much after. The respondents 4 to 6, and was relegated to lower position in the seniority list. We are sorry, there is no such provision in the rules.
According to the seniority list issued on 5th November, 1992, the appellant's name appears at S. No, 179, while respondents 4 to 6 are at S.Nos. 186, 196 and 209 respectively and as such the appellant is most senior to them, and had a preferential right for consideration of grant of Selection Grade B-16 over the respondents, and could not be denied this benefit on the ground that he had passed the Departmental Examination after the private respondents as contended by the respondent department. There is only one seniority list issued in November, 1992, on the basis of which the cases of the appellant and respondents were considered for grant of selection grade, and the department has not placed on record any other seniority list to show that seniority of the appellant and others were revised on the basis of passing of the Departmental Examination. In these circumstances, we are of the view that injustice has been done to the appellant in not granting him Selection Grade B-16 on the basis of 33%, while his juniors have been allowed the same benefit. We accept the appeal and direct the respondent department to reconsider his case for grant of selection grade B-16, in view of the observations made by the tribunal, from the date when his juniors were allowed Selection Grade B-16.