SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---Leave was granted in the above-mentioned five appeals which arise from the judgment of Balochistan Service Tribunal, dated 19-9-1997 to consider the following question of law, which is common in all these appeals:-- "We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned caveator at some length and are of the view that the question whether the seniority list prepared by the S&GAD on 8-10-1992 was in accordance with the direction of this Court contained in the judgment,dated 5-5-1999, requires examination and we accordingly grant leave to appeal."
The relevant fact the above appeals are that Government of Balochistan, in order to provide employment to the educated youth in the Province of Balochistan, constituted a Selection Board (hereinafter to be referred as the Board) for recruitment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (D. S. P.) and various other posts under the Government of Balochistan in the month of February, 1977. The Board constituted by the Government of Balochistan was headed by the Chief Secretary and its Members were, the Acting Secretary Finance, Acting Secretary Education and Acting Secretary S&GAD. The Board interviewed large number of candidates for the posts of D.S.Ps.
From 7th February to 15th February, 1977 and selected 19 candidates (respondent Nos.1, 7 to 14 in Civil Appeal No, 1199 of 1997 and one Muhammad Naeem) hereinafter to be referred as the selectees of the first batch. The Board again interviewed another set of candidates for selection to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police from 2nd March to 4th March, 1977 and selected other 8 candidates, hereinafter to be referred to as the 'selectees of second batch'. The selectees of the second batch are appellants in the above appeals. The selectees of the 1st and the 2nd Batch were offered appointment at one and the same time and they joined service as D.S.Ps. In the year 1977. In the first joint seniority list of D.S.Ps. Prepared by the department in the year 1979, the selectees of first batch were placed senior to the selectees of second batch. The seniority position shown in the combined seniority list of 1979 was repeated in the subsequent seniority list issued by the department in the years 1981 and 1983. In the years 1985, appellants Nos.2 and 3 in Civil Appeal No,1199 of 1997, who were the selectees of the second batch, made representation to the departmental authority against their seniority, which was placed below the selectees of the first batch. The representation made by appellants Nos.2 and 3 in Civil Appeal No,1199 of 1997 was, however, rejected by the departmental authority whereupon 2 separate service appeals were filed before the Balochistan Service Tribunal which too were dismissed on 1-1-1987. Two separate appeals were then filed before this Court against the judgment of Service Tribunal dated 1-1-1987 which were disposed of as follows:-- "There was in fact only one standard by which both the selections were held within a short span of three months. In the circumstances, the selection process cannot be considered to be two or distinct but to be one and the same, notwithstanding the fact that two separate lists of selectees were prepared and forwarded to the Government. The Government itself accorded approval to the selectees of the two interviews by an order.
In the circumstances, we accept the appeals, set aside the judgment of the Service Tribunal, and hold that 1978 Rules would apply in the matter of seniority and that the selection held was one and not two. It would be now for the Government to work out the first merit list of the selectees as prepared by the Selection Board and assign them seniority accordingly. No order to be made as to costs."
In pursuance of the above decision of this Court, the Government of Balochistan, through S&GAD, prepared a fresh seniority list on basis of the average marks secured by each candidate in the interview. The list prepared by S&GAD was circulated by the Home Department through its letter, dated 8-10-1992. Some of the officers in the seniority list prepared by the S&GAD on 8-10-1992, feeling aggrieved by the seniority list, represented to the Chief Secretary who constituted a Committee comprising of Secretary S&GAD, Secretary Law and Additional Secretary Home to look into the grievance of the aggrieved officers. The Committee constituted by the Chief Secretary examined the matter and came to the conclusion that on basis of the record available with the department the seniority list prepared by S&GAD was in accord with the direction of the Supreme Court quoted above. The Committee constituted by the Chief Secretary accordingly, approved the seniority list prepared by S&GAD. However, before the seniority list prepared by the above Committee could be sent for approval to the Chief Minister, the Chief Secretary Balochistan constituted another Committee comprising of Secretary Home, Secretary Law and D.I.G. Police, Qalat, and Deputy Secretary (Services) to re-examine the seniority list prepared by S&GAD on 8-10- 1992. The newly-constituted Committee by the Chief Secretary once again re-examined the whole matter and came to the conclusion that the seniority list prepared by S&GAD on 8-10-1992 was in order. The seniority list was accordingly notified on the basis of the recommendations of S&GAD, by the Government of Balochistan vide notification dated 20-7-1993. As a result of the above new seniority list prepared by S&GAD, the selectees of first batch became junior to the selectees of second batch. The selectees of the first batch accordingly, made a representation to the Government against the seniority list which did not succeed and thereafter, they approached the learned Service Tribunal through six separate service appeals. The learned Service Tribunal after hearing the parries at length came to the conclusion that the seniority list prepared by S&GAD, Government of Balochistan on 8-10-1992 was firstly, not in accordance with the direction of Supreme Court of Pakistan and secondly, it did not reflect the true seniority position of the selectees of the two batches. The learned Tribunal, accordingly, directed the Government of Balochistan to withdraw the seniority list and redetermine the seniority after completing all the formalities. Six separate petitions for leave to appeal were filed against the order of the Tribunal in which leave has been granted as aforesaid. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as respondents and also summoned the original record of the cases.
The main controversy in the above appeals revolves around the fact whether the marks secured by the selectees of the first batch were out of the aggregate of 400 or 200. According to the learned counsel for the selectees of the first batch aggregate marks fixed at the time of their interview were only 200, and therefore, the department while working out percentage of the marks obtained by the selectees of the first batch should have worked it out on that basis instead of calculating it on the basis of total marks of 400. The learned counsel for the selectees of the second batch on the other hand maintained that the aggregate marks at the time of selection of both the batches were fixed at 400, and therefore, percentage of marks secured by each candidate in the two selections are to be worked out on the basis of 400 total marks. The learned counsel for the selectees of first batch had very vehemently contended that twice the merit list was prepared by the department and in both the lists the basis for assigning merit to the selectees of two batches was that the percentage of marks secured by the selectees of the first batch was worked out taking the aggregate makes as 200 while the percentage of marks obtained by the selectees of second batch was calculated on the basis of aggregate of 400. It is true that the department in the earlier seniority list prepared on merit had shown the selectees of first batch senior to the selectees of second batch but this question has become irrelevant in view of the order of this Court passed in Civil Appeals Nos.72-K and 73-K of 1989 on 5-5-1992. In view of the order of this Court, the Government of Balochistan was required to prepare a joint merit list of the selectees of both the batches treating them as one selection on the basis of the merit assigned by the Selection Board. It is not disputed before us that if the percentage of marks secured by each selectee of the two batches is calculated on the basis of aggregate marks of 100 the list prepared by the S&GAD on 8- 10-1992 will reflect the correct merit of the selectees of the two batches. The selection of the first batch, however, maintained that the aggregate marks were 200 only and not 400. In order to resolve this controversy, we have summoned the original record from the Government of Balochistan which has been produced before us on 13-5-1999 by the Additional Secretary, S&GAD.
We have gone through the result sheets which show the marks obtained by each candidate in the interview held by the Committee from 7th to 15th February, 1977. However, this record does not mention the aggregate marks out of which the numbers were given to each candidate. According to the result sheets, 26 candidates were interviewed on 7th February, 28 candidates on 8th February, 24 candidates on 9th February, 26 candidates on 10th February, 50 candidate on 1 1 th February, 41 candidates on 12th February, 48 candidates on 14th February, and 43 candidates on 15th February, 1977. These result sheets do not support the contention of the learned counsel for the selectees of first batch that the total marks were only 200 and not 400. Quite a low candidates interviewed between 7th to 15th February, 1977 are shown to have secured more than 200 marks which was not possible if the aggregate marks in the interview were only 200. In these selectees of the second batch that the aggregate marks for both the batches were 400 appears to be correct.
The seniority list prepared by the Government of Balochistan, S&GAD, on 8-10-1997 which is reproduced in paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment shows that names of the selectees of the two bathes, the total marks obtained in interview alongwith average as follows:-- Sr. No, Name Total Marks obtained Average
1. Mr. Muhammad Aslam 300 75
2. Mr. Pervaiz Zahoor 298 74-1/2
3. Mr. Muhammad Anwar 273 68-1/4
4. Mr. Din Muhammad 272 68
5. Mr. Muhammad Tariq 251 62-1/4
6. Mr. Shuja Muhammad 248 62
7. Mr. Zahoor Ahmed 236 59-1/3
8. Mr. Abdul W ahid 232 58
9. Mr. Naseebullah Khan 197 (sic)
10. Mr. Hussain Ahmed 163 (sic)
11. Mr. Abdur Rahim 162 40/1-2
12. Mr. Faqir Hussain 162 10/1-2
13. Mr. Abdul Ghulam Kasi 149 (sic)
14. Mr. Qadir Bakhsh 147 (sic)
15. Mr. Ghulam Yasin 128 32
16. Mr. Ghulam Rasool 128 32
17. Mr. Amir Khan Mandokhel 122 30/1-2
18. Mr. Muhammad Naeem 119 29/1-4 The above seniority list prepared by S&GAD on the basis of the marks obtained by each candidates out of total marks of 400 reflects the merit of each candidate correctly. The learned counsel appearing for selectees of first batch has contended that except for the earlier list prepared by the department wherein the 1st selectees were shown senior to the selectees of second batch, there is no authentic record available to show that the 1st selectees were interviewed and given marks on basis of 400 aggregate marks. After going through the original record, we are of the view that the aggregate marks in both the interviews held from 7th to 15th February, 1977 and 2nd to 4th March, 1977 were 400 and, therefore, on the basis of the marks obtained by each candidate in above selections the merit list prepared by S&GAD is in accord with the direction of this Court and is not open to any exception. The appeals are accordingly, allowed, the judgment of learned Service Tribunal is set aside. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
The original record produced by the Additional Secretary, Government of Balochistan, in Court before us will be returned to some authorised representative of S&GAD, Balochistan, by the office.