NASIM SABIR SYED (MEMBER).---This judgment will dispose of twenty nine appeals mentioned above filed by the appellants undert section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 being identical in nature because common question of law and fact are involved in these appeals. The particulars of the appellants are as under:-- S. No.Name Date of Promotion- at LDCDate of Promotion as UDCDate of Seniority as Asstt.Date of Promotion as Asstt.
Incharge.Remarks
1. Mr. Zafar Ali 16-1-1961 21-7-1965 21-3-1977 18-9-1990 Regularised as L.D.C. vide Health Division No.E. 5- 12/84-Admn.-I. dated 12- 5-1985 Interms of Estt.
Divn. O.M. No. 1/8/73- ARC, Dated 21-11-73.
2. Mr. Gulab Khan 28-8-1963 27-1-1971 24-3-1981 -do-
3. Mr. Imdad Ali 31-3-1965 28-9-1972 28-7-1985 -do-
4. Mr. Tassawar Hussain Shah6-9-1965 31-3-1973 13-3-1986 -do-
5. Mr. Ali Asghar 22-7-1967 31-3-1973 5-12-1986 -do-
6. Haji Abdul Majid II 1-11-1967 23-4-1973 3-4-1988 -do-
7. Muhammad Saeed Akhtar28-12-1967 20-1-1968 26-12-1978 -do-
8. Muhammad Yunis 7-3-1968 27-4-1973 17-7-1988 -do-
9. Muhammad Arif Bhatti7-3-1968 27-4-1973 28-7-1988 -do-
10. Muhammad Akram 9-9-1968 1-6-1973 20-6-1989 -do-
11. Khadim Hussain 16-8-1969 9-5-1981 30-3-1993 -do-
12. Muhammad Idrees 11-7-1975 20-11-1980 -- Excess promote
13. Manzoor Ahmad 25-1-1971 3-5-1975 -- Regularised as L.D.C. vide Health Division No.E. 5- 12/84-Admn.-I. dated 12- 5-1985 Interms of Estt.
Divn. O.M. No. 1/8/73- ARC, Dated 21-11-73.
14. Ghulam Rasul 2-11-1972 20-2-1976 -- -do-
15. Mt. Talib Hussain Shah2-11-1972 20-2-1976 -- -do-
16. Jameel 23-12-1972 20-2-1976 -- -do-
17. Muhammad Iqbal Khan29-12-1972 21-6-1977 -- -do-
18. Mehdi Khan 1-2-1973 21-6-1977 -- -do-
19. Abdul Jabbar 18-4-1973 21-6-1977 -- -do-
20. Ibrar Hussain 8-10-1973 20-7-1978 8-7-1978 -do-
21. Nazir Ahmad Shahid -- 15-2-1973 1-1-1978 Regularised as L.D.C. vide Health Division No.E. 5- 12/84-Admn.-I. dated 12- 5-1985 Interms of Estt.
Divn. O.M. No. 1/8/73- ARC, Dated 21-11-73.
22. Muhammad Ahmed Khan-- -- 1-1-1978 Regularised as L.D.C. vide Health Division No.E. 5- 12/84-Admn.-I. dated 12- 5-1985 Interms of Estt.
Divn. O.M. No. 1/8/73- ARC, Dated 21-11-73.
23. Johar Ali -- -- -- -do-
24. Abdur Rashid 9-12-1975 28-4-1982 -- Excess promote
25. Rashid Muhammad 12-1-1976 28-4-1982 -- Excess promote
26. Muhammad Shamin Khan16-4-1976 28-4-1982 -- -do-
27. Abdul Rahim 12-8-1976 16-2-1984 -- -do-
28. Rashid Bukhari 7-1-1977 18-3-1985 -- -do-
29. S. Sibte Abbas Zahidi -- --- -- -- -- Appeal No,478(R) of 1995: The appellant feels aggrieved by the final seniority list of Assistants issued by the Health Division vide Circular No,5-17/94-Admn.I, dated 9-8-1995 whereby instead of reckoning the appellant's seniority from the date of actual promotion as Assistant (B-11) with effect from 17-4-1973, he has been given with effect from 28-7-1995. A reference was also made to the Full Bench of the Tribunal which means that he has wrongly been assigned seniority with effect from 28-7-1995. The appellant submitted departmental appeal on 29-8-1995, but vide Memo.
No,F.5-17/94-Admn.I, dated 28-11-1995, according to him, had been wrongly rejected.
2. The facts leading to these appeals are that the appellant (Appeal No,478(R) of 1995, joined Health Division as L.D.C. on 31-3-1965. It is worthwhile to note that the appellant in April, 1965 was an L.D.C. He was promoted as U.D.C. with effect from 28-9-1972 and as Assistant with effect from 17-4- 1973. In the seniority list of Assistants etc. issued on 6-11-1973, the appellant was given seniority with effect from 17-4-1973 i,e, from the date of promotion and was placed at Serial No,58. In the seniority list issued on 15-4-1978, he was given seniority as Assistant with effect from 17-4-1973 and was placed at Serial No,26.
3. Thereafter, a seniority list of Assistants of Health Division was issued on 18-9-1980 and the appellant was shown at Serial No,24. Respondents Nos.3 to 11, 14 to 21 and 26 were shown junior to the appellant. In this list respondents Nos.22 to 25 and 27 to 36 have not yet been appointed/promoted as Assistants. That on 26-12-1985 final seniority list of Assistants was issued by the Health Division in which the name of the appellant was not at all shown at any serial number and the respondents who were junior to the appellant in the earlier seniority lists were made senior to him.
4. The appellant submitted a departmental appeal on 21-1-1986 to the Health Secretary.
Simultaneously all the aggrieved went as a delegation to Ministerial Establishment and d an interview with the Secretary Health to explain him the injustice done to the L.D.Cs., U.D.Cs. and Assistants. The Health Secretary was pleased to meet the delegation of the affected persons on 21- 12-1986 and after hearing the point of view of the aggrieved delegation, the Secretary Health in supersession of seniority list of 1985 prepared under the orders of Joint Secretary, was kind enough to constitute a committee to look into the whole affair. The committee consisted of Mr. Muhammad Yousuf Khan, D.S. (B&I), Mr. Tariq Sher Khan, S.O. (Admn.I) and Mr. Muhammad Saeed Akhtar, Assistant Incharge. The Committee looked into the details of the matter and its impact. Thereafter, the appellant received Memo. No, F.9/88-Admn.I, dated 15-5-1989 whereby the appellant was informed that after due consideration of all representations of Assistants, U.D.Cs., etc. the case has been sent to the Establishment Division for their advice/comments. He was also informed that as soon as the reply was received, their cases will be dealt with accordingly. That on 1-4-1990, the Secretary, Health Division wrote D.O.Letter No,D.1/87-SC to the Secretary Establishment Division that the seniority list of Ministerial Establishment in the Health Division was issued in December, 1985 but a section of the staff had objected to the said list making out three points mentioned in para. 1 of his D.O. letter which reproduced as under:-- "(i) The departmental promotions claim that in the seniority lists they have not been given their due share and that the direct recruits have been adjusted against their share making them junior.
(ii) Some of the ineligible employees posted as Assistants claim that they may be adjusted against direct quota posts without fulfilling the conditions of 51 years service after 20-11-1973.
(iii)It has also been stated that the seniority lists issued in 1985 do not allocate posts of Assistants in the ratio of 50:50 etc."
The Establishment Division in their letter dated 10-5-1990 conveyed to Secretary Health that in the case of seniority list of Assistants, U.D.Cs. and L.D.Cs., forwarded by Health Division this list was not required to be vetted by the Establishment Division. The seniority of these officials was, therefore, to be finally determined by the Health Division/Department itself. The Health Division again requested the Establishment Division in their D.O. Letters dated 26-2-1991 and 2-5-1991 for appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the issue between the concerned persons but the Establishment Division vide their letter dated 15-4-1991, advised the Health Division that there is no provision for arbitration in the establishment matters of government servants which are settled in accordance with the rules/instructions issued from time to time. In 1992 the Health Division again referred the matter to the Establishment Division. Some of the aggrieved respondents filed appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal and in their orders dated 5-6-1995 passed in Appeals Nos.124 to 127 and 139-R of 1995, the Tribunal directed the Ministry of Health to issue a final seniority list of Assistants within one month. The Health Division thereafter issued the seniority list of Assistants vide Circular No,5.17/94- Admn.-I, dated 9-8-1995. Since the appellant's seniority was not properly fixed, according to the appellant, he filed a departmental appeal. The Health Department vide their Memo. F.5.-17/94- Admn.I, dated 28-11-1995, informed the appellant that his representation is time-barred under the Civil Servants Act as already intimated to him vide para. 2 of Circular No,5.17/94-Adtnn.-I, dated 9- 8-1995. One important aspect of the case to note is that seniority list of L.D.Cs., U.D.Cs. and Assistants were got prepared by the Joint Secretary but the Secretary Health did not approve the list and had ordered seniority of 1995 to be revised and redrawn by the committee constitutued by the Secretary and the said committee had redrawn seniority list of L.D.Cs., U.D.Cs. and Assistants and had also prepared a Roster of vacancies about which the Health Secretary wrote 3/4 D.O.
Letters to the Establishment Secretary to examine the seniority list drawn by the aforesaid committee. In the circumstances, there is no question of time barred in the appellant's case to which we agree. The prayer of the appellant is that "the appeal may kindly be accepted and his seniority may kindly be directed to be counted in accordance with three Full Bench and two other judgments of the Tribunal and the appellant may kindly be declared senior to respondents Nos.3 to 36 and his 22 years old seniority as U.D.C. and Assistant in the Health DivisiOn with effect from 28-9- 1972 and 17-4-1973 respectively may kindly be restored to him with all consequential benefits".
5. Another important aspect of the case is that all these officials had been promoted during the period from 1st January, 1972 to 5th July, 1977 which is the period mentioned in section 12-A of Civil Servants Act, 1973. For ready reference section 12-A is reproduced as hereunder:-- "12-A. Certain persons to be liable to removal etc.---Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in the terms and conditions of a civil servant appointed or promoted during the period from the first day of January, 1972, to the fifth day of July, 1977, the President or a person authorized by him in this behalf may,-- (a)without notice, remove such a civil servant from service or revert him to his lower post as the case may be, on such date as the President or, as the case may be, the person so authorized may, in the public interest, direct; or (b)in a case where the appointment or promotion of such a civil servant is found by the President or, as the case may be,' the person so authorised to suffer from a deficiency in the minimum length of service prescribed for promotion or appointment to the higher grade, direct, without notice, that seniority in such case shall count from the date the civil servant completes the minimum length of service in such appointment or promotion, as the case may he."
Substituted vide Civil Servants (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980.
This plea of the appellants has legal validity and we are of the view that the question of inter se seniority of the Assistants should have been drawn in accordance with the exemption granted against the general powers under section 12-A of Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Government after introducing section 12-A became of the view that the persons from Grade-1 to 15 will stiffer tremendously if provisions of section 12-A were implemented strictly. So an exemption from the applicability of section 12-A was granted through Office Memo.No:4/4-81-R.6, dated 6-10-1986 which is reproduced as under:-- Government of Pakistan, (Cabinet Secretariat) Establishment Division No,4/4/81-R.6 Rawalpindi, the 6th October, 1986 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: APPOINTMENT OF UNDER QUALIFIED CANDIDATES AGAINST THE POSTS OF ASSISTANT IN THE INTELLIGENCE BUREAU.
The undersigned is directed to refer to the Intelligence Bureau's 0.M .No:2/C/71-(59)/A, dated the 18th September, 1986 on the above-noted subject and to say that the 14 officials listed were understandably appointed in terms of Establishment Division's Office Memoranda No:18/1/68-F.II, dated 20-5-1969 and No,1/10/72-F.II, dated 13th September, 1977. Their appointments were made during the period from 1-1-1972 to 5-7-1977. All such appointments fell under section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and were subject to review. However, the Cabinet in its decision dated 15-7-1979 exempted the appointments in Grade-16 and below made during the abovementioned period from such review.
2. As regards the matter regarding their qualification it has been held that the listed officials at the time of their appointment as Assistant were qualified to be appointed as such on temporary basis as against permanent basis, due to the relaxation in qualifications as allowed in 1969 and 1976.
Their appointments, as such, in so far as their qualifications are concerned are considered to be regular.
3. This has the approval of J.S.(Reg). (Sd.)
Ch. Muhammad Saeed Anwar, Section Officer"
Later on persons in BPS-16 were also exempted from the application of this section. We will like to make a reference to para. 2 of this Office Memorandum wherein it makes clear that the qualifications of the officials were also considered to be regularised. The crucial question which arises is as to whether or not after regularizing of their services as Assistants their seniority in the cadre of L.D.Cs. and U.D.Cs. will affect their seniority as Assistants. This has become important for the reason that the department when fixing the seniority took the plea that their seniority in the L.D.C. and U.D.C. cadres will affect their seniority. This view seems to be not in consonance with the provisions of these exemptions. We fail to understand that when the date of promotion of an Assistant has been regularized from a particular date then how the seniority list can be redrawn depending on the seniority as L.D.Cs. Reference was also made to the case of Mr. Muhammad Zakaria Khan v. Secretary, Establishment Division cited as 1990 PLC (C.S.) 45 wherein it was submitted before the Tribunal that no formal order of regularization in the cases of Assistants appointed/promoted was necessary because whatever the illegality or infirmity was involved in their appointments stood condoned by virtue of the decision to exempt the cases of Grades-1 to 16 from the purview of section 12-A of Civil Servants Act, 1973, This precedent was followed in the following cases:
1. 1990 PLC (C.S.) 45 Muhammad Zakaria Khan v. Secretary, Establishment Division and others (Appeal No, 296(R) of 1986).
2. 1992 PLC (C.S.) 717 Rab Nawaz v. Secretary, Establishment Division and others (Appeal No,515(R) of 1990).
3. 1993 PLC (C.S.) 220 Abdur Rashid and others v. Secretary, Planning and Development.
(Appeals Nos. 156(R) to 163(R), 166(R) to 168(R), 170(R), 171(R), 173(R), 178(R) and 183(R) of 1990).
They took the view that on account of exemption from section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 any infirmity or illegality against the appointments of officials of Grade-1 to 15/16 stood condoned.
Similar point of view was given in the Appeal No, 398(R) of 1994, decided on 13-2-1995.
6. The above-cited precedents make it abundantly clear without an I ambiguity that the final position which emerges is that once regularization is made under the exemption granted against the provisions of section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 all the infirmities stood condoned. This applies to all the other appeals mutatis mutandis. In nutshell all the appellants be assigned seniority from 1-7-1980 when section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 was amended. Those who were regularized before 1-7-1980 will stand senior to them. All the L.D.Cs. and U.D.Cs. who were senior to them will be treated as deferred and will regain their seniority once they are promoted to the same ranks as that of tlkg respondents.
8. All the appeals succeed in the manner and to the extent as discussed above. No order as to costs. Parties be informed.
9. ROSHAN ALI MANGI (MEMBER).---I have gone through the judgment of my worthy brother, however, I feel otherwise, for the reasons discussed in the following paras.
10. The most important point in these appeals is whether or not, section 12-A, is applicable in the case of present appeals. If it is applicable then to what extent.
11, It may be pointed out that during the period 1-1-1972 to 5-7-1977 some employees were appointed/promoted in accordance with law. Whereas some other appointments/promotions suffered from some legal infirmities.
12. The section 12-A, was applied in the cases, where appointment or promotion of a civil servant suffered from a deficiency in the minimum length of service prescribed for promotion or appointment to the higher grade and seniority in such cases should count from the date civil servant completed the minimum length in such an appointment or promotion, as the case might be.
13.However, review under above section was exempted in respect of the Government employees from Grade-1 to 15/16, vide Cabinet Division's letter dated 6-10-1986. It was further clarified in the same letter that the matter regarding their qualification, the Assistants were qualified to be appointed as such on temporary basis as against permanent basis due to relaxation in qualifications as allowed in 1969 and 1976. Their appointments, as such in so far as their qualifications were concerned, were considered to be regular.
14.As such only those cases came within the purview of section 12-A, which suffered from some legal infirmity. However those cases which were regular and according to law would be beyond the purview of section 12-A. In fact section 12-A was special provision dealing with special cases of particular time. As such regular appointments and promotions were out of the purview of section 12-A in our opinion.
15.It seems that the judgment of the present appeals has been made on the basis of Cabinet Division's abovementioned letter, arguing that "whatever the illegality or infirmity was involved in their appointments stood condoned by virtue of the decision to exempt the cases of Grade-1 to 16 from the purview of section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973".
16.The perusal of the section 12-A, shows, the cases of the appointment/promotion of those persons were to be reviewed, which suffered from the deficiency in the minimum length of service prescribed for promotion/appointment to a higher grade. And the seniority of such cases, should be counted from the date of civil servant who completed the minimum length of service.
17.However, when it was found that the employees from Grade-1 to 15, would suffer tremendously if the provision of section 12-A were to be applied in their cases as well. It was, therefore, decided to take away their cases from the purview of the said section 12-A, vide Cabinet Division's letter, dated 6th October, 1986. However, in their case, qualifications were considered to be regular.
18.We are of the view, as it has been made amply clear in the Cabinet Division's letter, that appellants were not eligible for appointments, since they did not have the required qualification.
However, by virtue of relaxation in qualification alloNVed in 1969 and 1976, respectively, they became qualified, therefore, were considered to be regular, under the protection of abovementioned Cabinet Division's letter. However, their appointments were temporary, but made against the permanent posts.
19.Their appointments, no doubt were made regular on the qualification basis, but it does not indicate, if it conferred upon them the right of seniority as well from the date they were early appointed.
20.These employees no doubt were made regular employees under special conditions, but this had created no vested right of seniority over the employees, who were appointed in accordance with the law operative at that time. This is clear from the perusal of section 12-A, which says, that seniority in such cases shall count from the date a civil servant completes the minimum length of service in such appointment or promotion. From this it becomes clear, that such a promotee had to complete the required length of service before they became regular promote in accordance with law, In other words, the rules which were in operation were allowed to be operative in no case were to be over-ridden by the Cabinet's said letter.
21.Similarly, those appointees who fulfilled the requirement of appointment, in accordance with rules, should have the right to claim seniority/promotion over those, who were not eligible for such appointment, because of the lack of qualification. In their cases, those qualifications were relaxed, and they were made regular, hence should not claim the benefit of seniority/promotion under the protection of section 12-A.
22.While the appointments were being made, some were appointed according to the prescribed rules, and others were not. And the section 12-A, was applicable only to those appointments which were not according to law. As such section 12-A is not applicable to all appointments during the said period. Therefore, section 12-A cannot override, the rules operative at that time. For example, the promotion/appointment of the Assistants was to be made at 50:50 under the rules, i,e, 50% of Assistants were to be made through promotion from amongst the U.D.Cs. and remaining 50% were to be recruited directly.
23.In the present appeals, the share of the posts of Assistant occupied by the promotees increased against that of the direct recruits. As such it was wrong as it was not in accordance with law, although those promotees were made regular under the protection of Cabinet Division's letter, and promoted as Assistants later on. Does this protection confer upon them the right to reckon their seniority from the date they were early appointed, when in fact they were not even eligible for such an appointment, and claim thereby seniority violating the prescribed ratio of 50:50. The Cabinet Division's said letter does not contain that provision. In fact the letter only regularised their qualifications, and therefore, is applicable only in such irregular appointments. It in any way is not applicable to those appointments which were made in accordance with law. Those laws were in operation. And those laws required, that a ratio of promotes and direct recruits should be maintained at 50:50. As such if this ratio is disturbed in favor of promotes, it should be reversed.
Hence, the final list published according to law is correct.
24.The section 12-A is not applicable in regular cases of the appointment/promotion. In this respect, the Tribunal has already given two judgments i,e, in Appeal No,114(R) of 1993 (Ghulam Mustafa Khan v. Ministry of Finance) and in Appeals Nos.431 to 437(R) of 1995 (Hafiz Muhammad Anwar etc. v. Ministry of Education).
25.For the reasons recorded above the appeals, having no merit are dismissed.
26.MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN (MEMBER).---I had the privilege of perusal of the judgment proposed to be delivered by my learned brothers. I agree with the finding of my learned brother Mr. Roshan Ali Mangi. and would like to add the following few lines, particularly on two issues involved in these appeals.
27.The first and the foremost reliance of the appellants was on section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 read with the Cabinet Division Office Memorandum (providing certain exemptions) and the earlier judgments of this Tribunal in Muhammad Zakaria Khan v. Secretary, Establishment Division reported in 1990 PLC (C.S.)
45. The appellants stress that since direct appointment or promotion during the period falling between 1971 to 1977 has been exempted from scrutiny, therefore, any infirmity in the appointments, procedure or quota shall not affect their rights and they may be held entitled to count their seniority in the respective cadre from the date of such appointment or promotion despite the fact that the appointment was ad hoc or the promotion was in excess of the quota.
28. Before interpreting or applying the said provision of law and the administrative instruction, it will be pertinent to trace the background in which section 12-A was added to the Civil Servants Act, 1973 whereafter it was decided to exempt certain employees from the purview of the said amendment. Under the then provisions of law, the Civil Servants, after the expiry of probation period in a particular post, could neither be reverted to a lower post nor their services could be dispensed with, unless they were proved guilty of misconduct, etc. under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. however, section 12 was the only section where it was provided that if a person was holding an appointment on ad hoc basis, he shall be liable to reversion to the lower post without notice. Thus, in addition to the provisions relating to the period of probation, this was the only enabling clause whereby the employer department could revert an ad hoc employee to a lower post without notice. In 1977, it was decided that certain classes of employees should be subjected to the scrutiny and this provision was added to enable the competent Authority to remove such civil servants from service or to revert them to lower post without notice. Moreover, notwithstanding the other provisions of the statute, this clause was added to enable the same competent Authority to decide that the seniority of the civil servants, with deficiency in the required minimum length of service, shall be reckoned from the date of the said defect was removed. Thus, section 12-A invested the cvaipetent Authority with the power of removal, reversion and fixation of seniority of civil servants who were appointed or promoted between 1971 to 1977. Later on, it was felt that by strict application of the said provision of the law, several non-gazette employees falling between Grade 1 to 16 will be severely affected and, therefore, by two decisions of the Cabinet the civil servants in Grade-1 to 15 (and also in Grade-16) were excluded from the scope of scrutiny under section 12-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. Thus, the effect of this exemption was to place restriction that the competent authority will not scrutinize the cases of irregular appointees or promotes in BPS-1 to BPS-16 appointed or promoted between 1-1-1971 to 5-7-1977. This was a decision to protect certain civil servants from removal or reversion by the competent Authority or its delegate. Section 12-A had become the part of the statute and it could not be amended by executive decisions. The purpose of the decision of the Cabinet was only to the extent of empowering the agencies not to submit the cases of such civil servants for scrutiny to the authority concerned. The Cabinet decision had the effect of protection from scrutiny and it had neither regularized the irregularity nor legalized the illegality and did not entitle such civil servants to claim superior rights over those who were duly qualified and regularly appointed/promoted in accordance with quota and by following the required procedure against regular vacancies. We, therefore, hold that the appellants cannot claim the removal of infirmity in the appointment or promotion, on the basis of said Cabinet decision, particularly against private respondents who were duly qualified and appointed through proper procedure against the regular vacancies.
29.The appellants were appointed on ad hoc basis for a limited period i,e, till the availability of selectee from the Federal Public Service Commission. Some of the appellants were appointed or promoted against leave vacancies while others were temporarily promoted on ad hoc basis in excess of quota reserved for promotion. Many of them could not qualify the competitive examination, despite the provision to this effect in their letters of appointment. Although they were appointed/promoted earlier to the appointment of private respondents but, as stated earlier, their were infirmities in their appointments/promotions whereas the private respondents were appointed/promoted, though later, but in a regular way and without any infirmity in their appointment. Thus, the appellants claim to protect their career with effect from the date of joining service, or promotion to a higher post, whereas the contention of the private respondents is that due to the infirmities in the cases of appellants, they may be held to retain their seniority with effect from their regular appointment.
30.Another defect in the case of appellants is that the final seniority lists of L.D.Cs./U.D.Cs./Assistants were finalised and circulated on various dates in the year 1985. Some of the appellants did not care to challenge the said seniority list by seeking departmental remedy and, therefore, the seniority list of 1985 attained finality against them. Others filed departmental appeals but those appeals were rejected and some of them did not care to pursue the matter further and so the seniority list as we as the order of rejection attained finality. Some of them filed service appeals against the rejection of representations, but could not succeed in their service appeals and the appeals of certain appellants are already subjudice before the Supreme Court whereas others did not deem it appropriate to file further appeals and hence the decision of this Tribunal in their cases attained finality. Thus, all the appellants (except those whose appeals are pending before the Supreme Court) have allowed the seniority list of 1985, the rejection of their departmental representation and dismissal of service appeals to attain finality and hence the present service appeals from them, on the same cause of action, are incompetent.
31. With these additional observations, I would also dismiss the I c appeals, with no order as to costs. Parties be informed.
ABDUR RAZZAQ A. THAHIM, CHAIRMAN.--I agree with finding of my brothers Mr. Roshan Ali Mangi and Mr. Muhammad Raza Khan. ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL By virtue of proviso (a) to subsection (2) of section 3-A of the , Service Tribunals Act, 1973, in term of majority opinion, all the appeals are dismissed.