RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.---On 25th of June, 1977, Muhammad Ashraf, the appellant who had already been employed and working as Naib--Qasid in Pakistan Telegraph and Telephone Department, Islamabad, was appointed in the same department as Lower Division Clerk (Typist) on ad hoe basis for six months. On 23rd of May, 1981, the services of the appellant were regularised w.e.f. 21-5-1981. His case is that he was shown as senior in the seniority list, dated 23rd of January, 1989 amongst the Lower Division Clerks. The list was, however, revised vide Letter No.ADMN/16- 1/1990, dated 26th of July, 1990. He was, accordingly, shown to be the junior to the respondents ignoring the list dated 23-1-1989. This error was brought to the notice of the departmental authority saying that the services rendered by the appellant on ad hoc basis had to be counted towards the length of his total service for the purposes of his promotion. The representation of the appellant was turned down Similarly, his appeal was dismissed be the competent Authority on 7-5-1991 observing:--- "The appeal again submitted has been examined and it is observed that his name has been shown on correct place in the seniority list issued on 26-7-1990 vide this Office Letter No. ADMN. 16-1/1990 dated 26-7-1990, The request submitted on 9-1-1991 for change of seniority is not possible and cannot be acceded to under the rules, as already intimated vide memo. Of even number dated 3- 1-1991."
On 4-6-1991, the validity of the impugned order was assailed by the appellant by filing appeal which was heard and dismissed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad on 16th of August, 1992 holding:---"` "Under the above circumstances and after hearing the parties it is established as under:---
(i) That the private respondents had obviously cleared the departmental examination earlier than the appellant and their services were rightly regularised and they were placed senior to the appellant as L. D. C.
(ii) That the promotions of the private respondents as U.D.C., were correctly made by the respondents' Department earlier than the appellant, as they stood senior to him.
(i.e) That appeal is badly the-barred."
2. Learned counsel has submitted that the appellant is senior to the respondents keeping in view his length of service. The appellant has passed the requisite examination for his promotion and as such he is entitled to be treated as senior to the contesting respondents:
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has argued that seniority between the parties has rightly been fixed by the departmental authority. The appellant's appeal before the competent Authority was found to be barred by the. The contesting respondents cleared their departmental examination prior in the. They were made permanent earlier to the appellant.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have perused the record with their assistance.
5, There is no force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, inasmuch as, admittedly, the contesting respondents went through the promotion examination prior in the than the appellant. They were, therefore, shown to be senior to the appellant. The appellant was required to have passed the necessary test earlier to the respondents in order to claim his seniority over them. This he failed to do. In such a position, he cannot be permitted to claim seniority over the respondents. The view taken by the learned Service Tribunal is just, fair, proper and legal and as such, it is not open to any objection in the given circumstances. A substantial justice between the parties has been done by the competent Authority on the basis of the record available before it. A finding of fact has been given by the Tribunal that contesting respondents have passed the departmental examination before the appellant could do so. Similarly, they were made regular in service before the appellant could get such a status The appellant's appeal before the Service Tribunal against the last impugned order was held to be barred by limitation as no valid explanation could be offered for such delay. It is contended by the learned counsel that the impugned order was void and as such, no period of limitation would run against it. The argument is without substance inasmuch as, the order has been acted upon by the competent Authority. This fact was within the knowledge of the appellant and that being so, he failed to challenge the validity of the order within the. As a matter of fact, learned counsel for the appellant did not so seriously challenge the finding of the Tribunal that his appeal was barred by limitation. There is no question of public importance having been involved in these proceedings. This appeal is without substance.
It is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.