MUHAMMAD ASLAM, MEMBER-I.- The appellants have filed this appeal against the order dated 17.3.1997 passed by the Commissioner Gujranwala Division (respondent No. 1) on the representation of Mr. Muhammad Arshad, respondent No. 3. Ln his representation, submitted to the Commissioner Gujranwala Division, the said respondent had challenged the seniority of the appellants as senior clerk given to them w.e.f. 17.8.1993 as well as the promotion of the appellant Mr. Muhammad Akbar to the post of Assistant w.e.f. 8.3.1994. By the order of the Deputy Commissioner Mandi Bahauddin (respondent No. 2).
2. The appellant was inducted as junior clerk in the office of respondent No. 2 vide order of respondent No. 1 dated 17.8.1993 after creation of Mandi Bahuddin as a District. He was also promoted as senior clerk with retrospective effect from 1.7.1993, whereas respondent No. 3 was appointed as senior clerk by transfer from the office of ADC Gujrat vide order of respondent No. I, dated 1.9.1993. The Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, vide his order dated 17.3.1997 referred to above, set aside the seniority of the appellants based on their promotion as senior clerk w.e.f 17.8.1993 as also the promotion of appellant No. 1 to the post of Assistant which was ordered w.e.f.
8.3.1994 by the Deputy Commissioner Mandi Bahauddin.
3. The appellants have challenged the above-mentioned order of the Commissioner in the instant appeal. The written objections were filed. The learned counsel for respondent No. 3 raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the appellants have not availed of the departmental remedy against the impugned order dated 17.8.1993 of Commissioner, Gujranwala Division by which they felt aggrieved, for the first time.
4. Arguments were heard on this point. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that only one departmental representation is stipulated under the rules which had been submitted by appellant No. 1 before the Deputy Commissioner as a result of which the appellant was allowed the seniority as senior clerk from the date of his transfer to the new District Mandi Bahauddin. He therefore submitted that it was not necessary to tile any depanmental representation against the order of Commissioner Gujranwala Division. The learned counsel for respondent No. 3. On the other hand, argued that the appellants actually felt aggrieved, for the first time, by the order of Commissioner Gujranwala Division and departmental representation against the same should have been filed before the Board of Revenue, being the next higher Administrative Authority, particularly as the Commissioner's order was based on the representation submitted by the respondent and not by the appellant, ln this connection, he relied on the law laid down in Manzoor Hussain v.
Commissioner Faisalabad and mo others, reported in 1984 PLC(CS) 1132 and Tufail Ahmad Memon & 4 others v. Government of Sindh and 6 others decided by Sindh Service Tribunal and reported in 1987 PLC (CS)
166. The law laid down in the cited cases is fully applicable to the facts of this case.
We find that the appellants were aggrieved for the first time, by the order dated 17-3-1997 passed by the Commissioner. It was thus obligatory upon the appellants to file representation to the next higher Departmental Authority (Board of Revenue) in terms of section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 read with section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act. 1974. As no such representation has been filed by the appellant, the instant appeal is premature. The appellants can prefer appeal before this Tribunal after availing of the departmental remedy mentioned above.
5. The appeal is dismissed in limine as premature.