1. HAMZO KHAN M. KURSSHI (CHAIRMAN).- Briefly stated the facts leading to the present appeal are that appellant Khair Muhammad joined as a Primary Teacher in Larkana District on 28-10-1944- He passed the Second Year Primary Teachers Training Course in the year 1951. On 23-11-1959, he was transferred from Larkana District to Khairpur District.
2. Respondent No. 3 was borne as Primary Teacher in the carde of Sukkur District but in the year 1961 the place of his posting that is Pirjo Goth, came under the Administrative control of Khairpur District and therefore he also came to be borne on Kbairpur District carde. In 1963, when the new Pay Revision Rules were promulgated, it provided for award of Selection Grade to Trained Primary Teachers purely on the ba~,s of Seniority. The District Inspector of Schools decided the matter vide order dated 14.5-]966 awarded Selection Grade td the appellant with effect from 1-4-1964. The respondent No. 3 filed a departmental appeal before respondent No. 2. It is alleged that this appeal was highly time barred but respondent No. 2 vide his order dated 3-3-1968 allowed the appeal and decided that respondent No. 3 should be considered senior to the appellant, The appellant moved a representation before respondent No. 2 alleging that the orders in favour of respondent No. 3 have been passed without notice to him and in fact he (the appellant) was senior to respondent No. 3. The respondent No.2 upheld the contention of the appellant and vide his order, dated 2-10-1969, he restored the seniority of the appellant.
3. The successor of respondent No. 2 however, varied the order passed by his predecessor and decided by his order, dated 9-12-1969 that respondent No. 3 was senior to the appellant. This latter order passed by respondent No. 2 is the subject-mater of the present appeal. Before coming to this Tribunal, the appellant had filed a Civil Suit which was pending before the Third Additional District Judge Hyderabad, bearing Suit No. 117 of 1971. The suit abated on 10-8-1974 due to change in law.
4. The present appeal was filed under section 6 of Sind Service Tribunal Act, 1953.
5. The fact that the appellant passed Second Year Training Course in 1951 and respondent No. 3 passed the same examination in 1954 is not disputed. Consequently it is not disputed that the appellant and the respondent No. 3 entered the cadre of S. V. Teacher in years 1951 and 1954 respectively.
6. The appellant has, however, attacked the impugned order dated 9-12-1969 mainly on the ground that he would not lose his seniority by virtue of his transfer from Larkana to Khairpur District, before the transfer was on public grounds and be was not intimated that by virtue of his transfer he would lose his seniority. No. doubt the transfer of the appellant to Khairpur District was made on his own request but all the same the circular of the department specifically laid down that the transferee was to be informed that he would lose his original seniority in the new district. This was admittedly not done hence the appellant would not lose his original seniority. This condition was not stipulated in the transfer order of the appellant hence the reason assigned by respondent No. 2 in )the impugned order was unwarranted. Besides no rule or circular has been cited by respondent No. 2 whereby the right of seniority of the appellant was to be affected. Absence of mention of such condition in the transfer order would not deprive the appellant of his previous seniority.
7. We also find force in the second contention of the appellant that since his seniority was determined by the order of respondent No. 2 dated 2-10-1969 it could not be disturbed by the same officer or his successor on 9-12-1969 without notice to him. He contends that respondent No. 2 was not competent to pass the fresh order dated 9-12-1969. Respondent No. 2 could no revise his own order. I As a result of the above discussions we are convinced that the impugned order dated 9-12-1969 was illegal and must be set aside. The position of seniority and award of Selection Grade as it existed between the appellant and respondent No. 3 before passing of the impugned order must be restored.