FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal was granted in this case to consider; whether Tribunal was justified in denying its jurisdiction in case where seniority has been anti-dated and violative of the law laid down by this Court in Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar and 3 others v. Government of Punjab through Secretary to Government of Punjab, Lahore and 2 others (PLD 1991 SC 35).
2. The appellants joined the Cooperative Department as Inspector as a direct recruit. On completion of the training successfully they were appointed Inspector Cooperative Societies on 15- 1-1968 and 2-7-1968, respectively. In counting the "service" the period spent by the appellants in training was ignored and not accounted for while fixing their seniority. They were promoted as Assistant Registrars on 24-4-1981 and 1-11-1981, respectively. In the year 1983 the Government of Punjab advertised 16 posts of Assistant Registrars to, be filled in through Public Service Commission.
Accordingly, 16 candidates were recruited of whom 12 candidates including the respondents 3 to 11 as "first batch" joined service as Assistant Registrars subject to the conditions provided inter alias-- "You will undergo to years departmental training according to the prescribed syllabus. On the successfully completion of the said training you will be appointed in the Cooperative Department as Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies or against the equivalent posts in BS-16. Thereafter, you will remain on probation under the provisions of the West Pakistan Cooperative Service (Class II) Rules, 1963 and Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. You will also undergo all other courses of training as may be prescribed by the competent Authority. You will draw pay in BPS-16 during the course of training against the newly created training posts.
You would execute an agreement binding yourself to serve the Cooperative Department for at least 5 years after the completion of your training or to refund pay and allowances drawn during the period of training in case you leave the Department earlier. "
The 'first batch' accepted the conditions, therefore, they were deputed for 2 years training to the Cooperative Training College Faisalabad against training posts. On completion of the training course on 6-4-1986 they were appointed Assistant Registrars against the cadre posts of Assistant Registrar vide order dated 5-4-1986.
4. Similarly respondents Nos.12 to 16 to be called the "2nd batch" were selected by the Public Service Commission as direct recruit in the year 1985 on the same terms and conditions as reproduced above and they to were deputed for training for 2 years against 5 remaining training posts on 10- 12-1985. On completion of the course they were also appointed against the vacant posts of Assistant Registrars in the cadre. The "first batch" as stated above were posted as Assistant Registrars w.e.f: 7-4-1986 but contrary to the accepted terms and conditions the candidates in 1988 managed to get their services regularised from the date of commencement of their training i.e. Viz: 7-4-1984. This disturbed the seniority list and gave rise to several representations by the appellants to the departmental authorities. As these representations were not processed and disposed of the appellants approached the learned Lahore High Court wherefrom a direction was issued for disposal of the pending representations. Ultimately the appellants' representations were dismissed, which order was challenged in appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore. The learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction as stated above.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for, the parties and perusal of the record question raised by the appellants before the Tribunal was whether the period of training of 2 years was rightly treated as service in fixing the respondents' seniority. It was in this context that it was agitated in the grounds of appeal that during the training period the appellants were not members of the service, therefore, such period could not have been accounted for as service while fixing their anti-dated seniority. The learned Tribunal, however, while disposing of the appeal held as under: "During the course of arguments learned counsel for appellant has vehemently contended that as already recorded by him in his Memo of present appeal at page 6 para. 6(a), page 18 para. 11 (g) and page 19 paras. 11(j)(k), 'during the period of training the respondents had not been appointed as Assistant Registrars against cadre posts "were not members of the service" for the purpose of seniority and inclusion in the seniority list."
3. In view of the above clear cut contention of the appellant's counsel we find ourselves unable to proceed with the appeal for want of jurisdiction against the respondents, who according to his own contention 'were not members of service', and, thus 'not civil servants' during years of their training, as defined in section 2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and in section 2(b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974."
6. The approach of the learned Tribunal on facts of the case appears to be mis-conceived as at the the the Tribunal was seized of the appeal for resolution and determination of inter se seniority of the parties it did possess the jurisdiction. The mere fact that the appellants had raised objection in their grounds of appeal, in support of their plea that the respondents are junior to them and wanted to exclude 2 years training period as was done in the case of the appellants. It was in that context mentioned that such period was not the period in service and would not be counted as such in determining the inter se seniority of the parties. Accordingly; without going into the merits of the case this appeal is allowed, judgment of the learned Tribunal is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Punjab Service Tribunal for decision of the appeal on merits within a period of three months.