' AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 22-1-1995 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, passed in Appeal No,484(R) of 1994, filed by respondent No,4, Muhammad Moazzam Mirza, claiming seniority over the petitioner in the final seniority list of Assistants (B-11) circulated through letter dated 2-8-1994, allowing the same.
2. The brief facts are that the departmental selection committee selected the petitioner for the post of an Assistant in the Federal Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred to as the F.P.S.C., which was approved on 9-1-1984 but he was appointed as such on 5-8-1984. One Sher Zaman was nominated as an Assistant and was appointed from the reserved quota of Northern Areas and F.A.T.A. On 23-3-1984 in the F.P.S.C. It appears that respondent No,4 was working as an Assistant in the Department of Supplies, Karachi. He was brought in the F.P.S.C. In exchange of one Muhammad Riaz on 17-7-1984. One of the conditions of his above transfer imposed by the F.P.S.C., was that his seniority as an Assistant would be counted from the date of joining of F.P.S.C., namely, 17-7-1984 and not from the date when he was promoted as such appointed in the Department of Supplies, Karachi. It seems that there was a tie between the petitioner and said Sher Zaman as to the seniority inter se. Since both were appointed in the same batch and as the petitioner was put senior in the selection, he was given seniority over Sher Zaman. However, when the above final seniority list of the Assistants (B-11) was circulated through the aforesaid letter dated 2-8-1994, respondent No,4 was shown junior to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the above action of the department, respondent No,4 preferred aforementioned appeal before the Tribunal, which has been allowed through the impugned judgment. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. In support of the above petition Mr. Fazal Ellahi Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that as Sher Zaman was appointed on 20-3-1984 as an Assistant which is a date prior to respondent No,4's joining F.P.S.C., the petitioner could not have been placed in the seniority list below respondent No,4 and, hence the impugned judgment is not in accordance with law. To reinforce the above submission he has referred to the Establishment Manual, Volume II, hereinafter referred to as the Manual, and relied upon the following paras from the Chapter under the caption "Seniority of ministerial staff employed in the Central Secretariat and its Attached Departments":-- "Para. 3 of the Manual.---When two or more candidates are nominated to the same Division or Department of different dates on the results of the same examination, their seniority inter se should be determined by the date of joining, provided that--
(a) a candidate originally nominated to a vacancy expected to become permanent (generally called a quasi-permanent vacancy), who fails to secure confirmation for no fault of his own and is re-nominated by the Establishment Division to another Division or Department should count for seniority the service which he had already rendered in the quasi-permanent vacancy in the previous office; and
(b) if a candidate is delayed in joining by circumstances beyond his control, with the result that another candidate nominated later to the same Division or Department joins earlier, the relative seniority of these two candidates should be determined in accordance with the date of nomination instead of the date of joining."
"Para. 8 of the Manual.---If several candidates are appointed direct (i,e, not through the Central Public Service Commission on a temporary basis, on one and the same date, they should invariably be arranged in order of merit and should be assigned their position in the seniority list accordingly."
4. The above quoted paras. Of the Manual have no relevance for determining the seniority inter se between the petitioner and respondent No,4 as respondent No,4 does not belong to the petitioner's batch. Since Sher Zaman belonged to the petitioner's batch, the petitioner was given seniority over said Sher Zaman in view of the above provisions of the Manual though he had joined the service earlier. However, this rule cannot be applied to the case of respondent No,4 for the above reason, namely, that he did not belong to the petitioner's batch. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal is unexceptional. Leave is refused.