ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).----These three Appeals Nos. 323, 338 and 339 (R) of 1995 filed by M/s. Muhammad Rafiq Malik, Abdul Rehman Memon and Anwar Ali Khan, who are working as Acting Principals in Islamabad Model Colleges, are the outcome of final seniority lists of Vice- Principals (Male) in BPS-18 and Assistant.Professors, who are private respondents in these appeals, issued by the Ministry of Education on 10-4-1995 and 30-3-1995, respectively. All the appeals involve common questions of law and facts, therefore, we propose to dispose of these appeals by this single judgment.
2. The facts of these appeals as stated in the memo. of appeals, are summarized below:-- "The appellants were initially appointed as Vice-Principals (B-18 + Charge Allowance) by the competent Authority and at that time there were three distinct cadres among the male teaching/administrative staff in the model set-up as under:
(i) Principal B-19 + Charge allowance
(ii) Vice-Principal B-18 + Charge allowance
(iii) Senior Teachers B-17 (25% in Selection Grade B-18).
The seniority lists of the three distinct cadres were maintained separately as per rules duly approved by the Govemment of Pakistan. The employees in the Model Institutions were notified civil servants in 1991 as a result of the Supreme Court decision. The Ministry of Education undertook the exercise of reorganizing the service structure of the employees so as to bring about a career planning envisaging implementation of 4-tier formula as applicable to the employees of Federal Government Colleges. The Ministry of Education stumbled by treating the two distinct cadres of Vice-Principals and Senior Teachers (BPS-18) as one and the same cadre and as such committed the following wrongs:--
(i) Preference was given to Senior Teachers in making current charge appointments of Principals.
(ii) His cadre was illegally merged with that of the Senior Teachers and a combined seniority list was prepared.
(iii) His post was wrongly equated with that of the Senior Teachers and like them he was redesignated as Assistant Professor on the basis of illegally combined seniority list.
Being aggrieved with this situation, the appellants approached the Tribunal by filing following service appeals:-
(1) Appeal No,198(R) of 1993 for grant of current charge in preference to Senior Teachers. Prayer granted.
(2) Appeal No,269(R) of 1993 for withdrawal of illegal seniority list and restoration of separate cadre-wise seniority lists as was in vogue before merger of Vice-Principals and Senior Teachers.
Prayer granted.
(3) Appeal No,428(R) of 1993 for resignation as Associate Professor on the basis of separate seniority lists before merger. Prayer granted to the extent that inter se seniority of Vice-Principals be determined in such a way as to give edge to the Vice-Principals over Senior Teachers; that resignation/reorganization must not disturb/downgrade/relegate the substantive status for seniority of Vice-Principals vis-a-vis the Senior Teachers.
Besides granting these prayers, the Tribunal made the following observations:--
(i) Terms and conditions of a civil servant cannot be changed to his disadvantage.
(ii) Rules cannot apply retrospectively.
Instead of first. determining the inter se seniority of Vice-Principals vis-a-vis the Senior Teachers, the Ministry has now erred a fourth time by issuing separate seniority lists of Vice-Principals (without redesignation) and Senior Teachers (with redesignation as Assistant Professors). It may be pointed out that the Principals, redesignated as Associate Professors have already been prbmoted as Professors. It will also not be out of place to mention that the appellant had never objected to his own redesignation what he had prayed for was cadre-wise redesignation. Besides the Ministry has not withdrawn the order of his redesignation as Assistant Professor. It has been further submitted that avenues of further promotion having been blocked for the appellants and his edge of seniority as Vice-Principal over Senior Teachers having been denied, after exhausting departmental remedy, the appellants, have approached the Tribunal by filing these appeals. In this context, it has also been stated that the Miscellaneous Petition No,29 in Appeal No,428(R) of 1993 filed by Mr. M. Rafiq Malik is still sub judice."
3. The appellants have taken the following grounds in their memo. of appeals:--
(1) That the impugned orders are illegal, unlawful and mala fide apart from being null and void and of no legal effect on the rights of the appellants.
(2) That the new orders are very damaging to the appellants as in the new recruitment/promotion rules there is no upward movement of a Vice-Principal whereas Principals redesignated as Associite Professors have already been promoted as Professors, B-20 and private respondents, who were Senior Teachers, having been redesignated as Assistant Professors, now have prospects of rising to the post of Professor.
(3) That the impugned orders are violative of the express provisions of section 8 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the provisions made therein.
(4) That the impugned orders are violative of the earlier decisions of the Tribunal in Appeals Nos.
198, 269 and 428(R) of 1993, which have attained finality."
4. The appellants have prayed as under:-- " it is respectfully prayed that the impugned orders passed by Ministry of Education being violative of the rules and against the principles of justice and fairplay may kindly be set aside. It is further prayed that the Ministry of Education be directed to refrain from any such act that may place the appellants at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the private respondents, to issue a new seniority list showing the appellants as Assistant Professor senior to Private respondents and any other relief which this learned Tribunal may deem to be just and fair in the circumstances of the case alongwith costs."
5. Notices were issued to the respondents and they filed comments. The Ministry of Education has stated as under, and the relevant paragraphs are reproduced below:-- FACTS
(2) The rules of 1988 have been superseded by those of 1993. Since half of the Senior Teachers in B- 18 were recruited through direct recruitment, the selection grade terminology was, therefore, declared as a misnomer and these Senior Teachers (B-18) have been termed as regular B-18 employees.
(5) The combined seniority list of Senior Teachers and Vice-Principals issued earlier was later separated as a result of judgment of the Honorable Federal Service Tribunal, upheld by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
(8)Since at that time the provision of Vice-Principals in the set-up of rules was not available, it was deemed fit to redesignate VicePrinicipals as Assistant Professors so that they may have no difficulties in drawal of salary and, therefore, sanction letter, duly endorsed by Finance Division also include the Vice-Principals as Assistant Professors.
(9)Summaries for promotion in respect of Vice-Principals (Male and Female) with the incorporation of the extract from judgment of the F.S.T. have been sent to Establishment Division to hold D.P.C. and consider the appellants for promotion as per policy and rules.
GROUNDS
(11) The proposal for incorporation of Vice-Principals alongwith Assistant Professor (Ex-Senior Teachers) for promotion to Associate Professors were forwarded to Establishment Division supported by Judgment of Federal Service Tribunal which remained under their consideration.
Vice-Principals have been retained separate from Senior Teachers in light of the judgment of the Tribunal dated 16-11-1993.
PRAYER No such action has so far been taken by the Ministry which has placed the petitioners at a disadvantage vis-a-vis Assistant Professors and that issuing of new seniority list as prayed by the appellants will be violation of the orders of this Court which in earlier judgment directed the Ministry to separate their cadre and refrained from merging them."
6. Private respondents in their comments have stated that after decision of Supreme Court, appellants have no cause to agitate the matter and appeals have been filed with a view to delaying the implementation of the promotion cases of teaching cadre and appellants have no locus standi to protest against the framing of separate seniority list of teaching cadre. It is stated that the matter was previously raised in Appeals Nos. 267, 268, 269 and 271(R) of 1993; and 428, 429, 438 and 445(R) of 1993 and finally decided up to Supreme Court and Vice-Principals have to stay in separate cadre. Reference has also been made to Appeals Nos. 428, 429, 438 and 445(R) of 1993 to the effect that separate seniority lists have rightly been issued. It is stated that it is totally irrelevant to speak about implementation of the 4-tier formula and subject cannot be opened. It is also stated that appellants to stay as Vice-Principals in separate cadre.
7. Counter comments were filed by appellants and also rejoinder by respondents.
8. The contention of the appellants is that they brought their grievance against consolidated seniority list of teachers issued before introduction of 4-tier scheme where illegally their cadre was merged with Senior Teachers (BPS-18) of Selection Grade. It is argued that the post of Vice- Principal was promotion post at that time and this impugned list had been issued with mala fide intention after two years of judgment of Tribunal when situation had changed and they have been redesigned as Assistant Professors on the basis of their grade. It is contended that in the changed situation, 4-tier scheme was introduced and Notification dated 15-11-1993 was issued and the appellants and the respondents were designated as Assistant Professors for which they never brought grievance before the Tribunal about their resignation. It is argued that the appellants are continuing after 4-tier formula and on the introduction of 1993 Rules, as Assistant Professors and they brought their grievance before the Tribunal by filing Service Appeals Nos. 428, 429, 438 and 445(R) of 1993. Their grievance was that they were Vice-Principals in BPS-18 by way of regular appointment, whereas the Senior Teachers were in BPS-18 by way of selection grade and they had edge over them and, therefore, the Vice-Principals should automatically be redesigned as Associate Professors (BPS-19). It is submitted that all the appeals were allowed by the Tribunal to the extent that Rule 5 where under the cases of teaching staff were to be referred to Federal Public Service Commission for regularization was struck down and it was held that the Vice-Principals could not be equated with the Senior Teachers and it was further held that the cases of Vice- Principals designated as Assistant Professors be processed for promotion as Associate Professors within three months. This judgment of the Tribunal was affirmed by the Supreme Court and accordingly the cases of promotions are now under process in view of the judgments of the Tribunal and the Supreme Court. The grievance of the appellants is that the final seniority list issued on 10-4-1995 is violative of the rules and against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 11-11- 1993 passed in Appeals Nos. 267, 268, 269, 270 and 271(R) of 1993. It is submitted that they had never challenged 4-tier formula and by redesignation, it cannot be disadvantageous to their rights.
9. Mr. Khalid Abbas Khan, learned Federal Counsel and Mr. Muhammad Ismail, Assistant Educational Adviser argued that combined seniority list of Senior Teachers and Vice-Principals was issued earlier but later separated as a result of judgment of the Tribunal and upheld by the Supreme Court and also submitted that this fact has been mentioned in para. 5 of their comments.
It is argued that Vice-Principals were redesigned as Assistant Professors to make them convenient to draw their salary. It is submitted that summary for promotion for appellants as Associate Professors has been sent to the Establishment Division to hold D.P.C. and no action to their disadvantage is being taken against them.
10.The contention of Mr. Fazal Elahi Siddiqi, the learned counsel for private respondents is that appeals have been filed just to delay the promotions of private respondents and they have no locus standi to challenge separate seniority list of the Teachers cadre. It is also argued that in Appeals Nos.428, 429, 438 and 445(R) of 1993 the question of Vice-Principals and Assistant Professors was raised. It is contended that appellants have to continue as Vice-Principals in light of judgment of Tribunal which reached to finality up to Supreme Court level. Establishment Division though party have not filed comments at all in all such appeals.
11.In these appeals, the separate seniority lists of Vice-Principals and Assistant Professors have been challenged before us and as is evident from the comments filed by the Ministry of Education, these seniority lists have been issued in pursuance of judgment of the Tribunal in Appeals Nos.267 to . 271(R) of 1993, decided on 11-11-1993 wherein it was held that cadre of Teachers is separate from the Vice-Principals. Although the matter stood settled on the pronouncement of judgment dated 11-11-1993 in the above-mentioned appeals by the Tribunal, but since controversial points have been raised by the respondents, we have to meet their arguments. The entire history of the dispute has been given in the preceding paragraphs and we do not like to burden this judgment with repetition. As stated, the appellants for the first time brought their grievance before the Tribunal by filing Service Appeals Nos. 267 to 271(R)/93, filed on 22-8-1993, i,e, earlier to introduction of 4-tier formula, and the Tribunal by its judgment dated 1-11-1993 allowed the appeals holding that merger of the appellants as Vice-Principals into the cadre of teachers was illegal and without jurisdiction, and that separate seniority list of Vice-Principals continue to be maintained as was being done up to 1992. Being aggrieved with the judgment of the Tribunal, the Federation of Pakistan and one of private respondents namely Mr. Abdul Hayee Sheikh, filed Civil Petitions Nos. 53 to 57 and 87 of 1994 before the Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by its judgment dated 19-6-1994 did not find any infirmity in the reasonings of the Tribunal and dismissed the petitions. Accordingly the judgment of the Tribunal was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. These three appellants filed Appeals Nos. 198, 207, 208 and 211(R) of 1993 on 5-7-1993, whereby they challenged the current charge of the post of Principals given to Mr. Abdul Hayee Sheikh and Mr. Syed Arif Hussain, who were junior to them, and the contention of the appellants was that they being Vice-Principals senior to respondent Senior Teachers had prior right to be considered for promotion on current charge basis keeping in view their better administrative and academic experience. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 13-12-1993 made the following observations:-- It may be observed that the post of Vice-Principal apparently is next to the Principal and this fact is borne out from the Recruitment Rules of 1983 and even in 1988 Rules whereby the Vice-Principals are competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings and initiate A.C.Rs, in respect of clerical staff working under them. Looking to the administrative and academic responsibilities being carried out by the Vice-Principals, they cannot be equated with the Senior Teachers and in all fairness they have got a preferential right for consideration of their cases for current charge arrangement in comparison to the Senior Teachers...."
This judgment of Tribunal was not challenged by respondents including Ministry of Education or Establishment Division in Supreme Court on the contrary; appellants were given current charge of Principals in compliance with this order. The matter did not end here. There was another round of litigation when on the introduction of 4-tier scheme, whereby all previous rules of Model Colleges were repealed, and the Vice-Principals and the . Senior Teachers in BPS-18 had all been redesignated as Assistant Professors and merged into one cadre. In the said Notification dated 15- 11-1993, under Rule thereof, the cases of the teaching staff under the Model Colleges had to be referred to FPSC for regularization of their services, and that notification was also put to challenge before the Tribunal by the appellants who are now before, by filing Appeals Nos. 428, 429, 438 and 445(R) of 1993, filed on 13-12-1993. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 9-4-1994 struck down Rule 5 holding that it cannot operate retrospectively. It was further held:--- "...We shall alto direct the respondent Ministry/Department to examine the aspect of inter se seniority of the appellants who have been holding regular jobs of Vice-Principals (B-18 + charge allowance) through promotions vis-a-vis respondents Nos.5 to 12 who have been holding jobs of Senior Teachers B-18 through Selection Grade, because regular promotion to a post in a grade should have an edge over the Selection Grade appointment in the same grade. But after reorganization, the appellants and the private respondents have all been redesigned as Assistant Professors (B-18) and the seniorities of these two groups viz. appellants (being Vice-Principal (B-18 + charge allowance through process of promotion) and private respondents (being Senior Teachers B-18 through selection grade) have been equated/merged. This will not be a fair and just solution/preposition by the respondent Ministry/Department, because after reorganisation/resignation they should not disturb/downgrade/relegate the substantive status for seniority of the appellants (B-18 + charge allowance) through promotions vis-a-vis said respondents as B-18 through Selection Grade, as same spirit and principles have been held by the honourable Supreme Court in judgment dated 3-10-1993 while disposing of the Civil Appeals Nos.
33 to 38 of 1993. Accordingly, the respondent Ministry/Department shall prepare a seniority list within next four months and circulate. With these observations/directions, we partly accept the appeals and dispose these of."
Being aggrieved with this judgment, the Government and one Mr. Abdul Hayee Sheikh challenged it before the Supreme Court by filing Civil Petitions Nos. 284 to 287 of 1994. Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the contention/objection of Mr. Fazal Elahi Siddiqi, learned counsel for the private respondents was that in the new recruitment rules, there was no category of teachers as Vice- Principals for further promotion and therefore, the respondents therein cannot be considered for promotion alongwith the appellants, but this kind of objection was not approved by the Humble Supreme Court observing that they would refrain from expressing any opinion on the above contentions of Mr. Fazal Elahi Siddiqi, as the Tribunal had remanded this issue to the department for determination in the light of the impugned decision in accordance with the existing rules. The Supreme Court by its judgment dated 16-1-1995 dismissed the petitions and refused the leave to appeal. Therefore, it is clear that judgments of the Tribunal in all the appeals filed by the appellants were maintained and attained finality and as a consequence whereof, there was no alternative left for the respondent Ministry of Education but to implement the judgments in its true spirit, which they failed to do. Ultimately, the appellants filed Miscellaneous Application No,29 of 1995 in Appeal No, 428(R) of 1993 for implementation of judgment. Notice of the application was sent to the Ministry of Education and the private respondents. The contention of the appellant Mr. M. Rafiq Malik was that he had been posted/transferred as Director (M.C.) in the Federal Directorate of Education, which is a B-19 post, but he had not been regularly promoted as Director (B-19). In reply to the miscellaneous application, the Ministry of Education in their comments submitted that the appellant had been posted as Director on acting charge basis, which is a post in B-19 and interchangeable with the post of Principal in the Model Colleges. It was also submitted that the case of the appellant for regular promotion will be finalised within a day or two and he is to be given B-19. However, Mr. Fazal Elahi Siddiqi, learned Advocate for private respondents again raised the same objections which were taken before the Supreme Court in Civil Petitions Nos. 284 to 287 of 1994, and the Tribunal follwoing the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court repelled the arguments of the learned counsel and reiterated its earlier view taken in the decisions already given and upheld by the Supreme Court. Finally, the Tribunal by order dated 7-5-1995 disposed of the Miscellaneous Application No,29 of 1995 that as per statement of Mr. Muhammad Ismail, departmental representative of the Ministry of Education, the case of the appellant for regular promotion as Director (B-19) would be finalised within a day or two. The respondent Ministry of Education and private respondents being satisfied with this order, did not file any appeal before the Supreme Court, and as such this order also reached to finality, and in such a situation, the respondents cannot deviate from the orders/judgments of the Tribunal already passed till such time. In spite of all this, the grievance of the appellants was not materialised, and ultimately M/s. M.
Rafiq Malik and Anwar Ali Khan Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 29 and 124 of 1995 wherein they agitated that the judgment of the Tribunal had not yet been implemented and they had not been regularly promoted. Accordingly, again notices were issued to the Ministry of Education, and in reply thereto, the departmental representative Mr. Muhammad Ismail, Assistant Educational Adviser, submitted that the case of both the appellants for promotion to the post of Associate Professors (B-19) had already been forwarded to the Establishment Division for consideration by the D.P.C., in order to implement the judgment of the Tribunal dated 9-4-1994. Accordingly, the Tribunal on the statement of Mr. Sindhu, the learned Standing Counsel for the Government that the Summary had been submitted to the Establishment Division for promotion of the appellants in the light of judgment of the Tribunal, for consideration by the Central Selection Board, allowed two months time to finalise the matter by order dated 25-10-1995. It is also pertinent to mention that on perusal of record it transpired that one of the private respondents, namely Mr. Syed Arif Hussain who was at that time officiating as Vice-Principal (Admn), in Islamabad College for Boys, G-6/3, Islamabad, brought his grievance before the Tribunal by filing Appeal No,335(R) of 1989, filed on 21- 9-1989, against the appointments of M/s. Abdul Rehman Memon and Anwar Ali Khan as Vice- Principals and his contention was that under the Recruitment Rules, this post was to be filled on the ratio of 50:50 from the departmental candidates and the direct recruits which clearly shows that post of Vice-Principal is promotion post. However, his appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 27-9-1990: It is strange that the same person had now taken a different stand in these appeals. In spite of all this, the Ministry of Education did not review the cases of appointments and promotions of the Teachers as directed by the Tribunal in its judgment dated 11-11-1993 in the light of the objections raised by Mr. Qazi Abdul Rashid, the learned counsel for co-respondents, and also did not frame the seniority list, of teachers in pursuance of the judgment but the Ministry of Education has now very tactfully issued the impugned seniority lists of Vice-Principals and the Assistant Professors in 1995 when entire situation was changed and it was not the spirit of the judgment of the tribunal because there was no concept of Assistant Professor and there existed only two categories of Principals/Vice-Principals and the Teachers. In this context, we would also like to reproduce hereinbelow a letter issued by the Ministry of Education on 26th July, 1993 and it reads as under:-- "GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS WING)
SUBJECT: REDESIGNATION OF SENIOR TEACHERS Reference this Ministry's letter of even number, dated 12th July, 1993 on the above subject.
2. The senior teachers working in the Institutions may be redesignated as follow:--
1. Senior Teachers (B-17) Lecturer
2. Senior Teachers/Vice-Principals (B-18). Asstt. Professor
3. The staff who were granted move-over is to be redesignated according to their basic grade. This Ministry's letter of even number, dated 21st July, 1993 on the above subject be amended as above. (Sd.) SAIF ALI, DEPUTY SECRETARY.
All Principals (By name) Mr. Abdul Hayee Sheikh, Principal, I.M.C.B., F7/3, Islamabad.
Ministry of Education U.O. No,D.1583/93-ME, dated 26th July, 1993."
12. The resignation of Vice-Principals as Assistant Professors was rightly done and had never been challenged by appellants rightly as after 4-tier scheme all posts including the Principal were redesignated in the light of 1993 Recruitment Rules, and since this is a past and closed chapter, therefore, we do not want to open it again while disposing of these appeals for seniority. The appellants in view of judgment on the basis of their terms and conditions etc. were given acting charge of Principals position equal to B-19 (Associate Professor) which they are continuing pending their regular promotions and on that analogy the Tribunal independently dealt with their cases.
Their acting charge has not been challenged by any one including the private respondents. The matter for consideration of their promotions has finally been settled and the Ministry of Education in order to implement the orders of the Tribunal, which attained finality up to Supreme Court, have sent their cases to Establishment Division, and we have directed them to finalize the matter within two months. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Fazal Elahi Siddiqi, Advocate that appellants are responsible for delay of promotion of teachers and Tribunal had not passed any order with regard to promotion of teachers nor the respondents approached the Tribunal for promotion cannot be accepted. We also cannot accept the contention of Mr.Fazal Elahi Siddiqi, Advocate that forever appellants to remain Vice-Principals and there is no such order by Tribunal. This position was prevailing when there was the concept of Principal/Vice-Principal/Teachers in Model Colleges in view of 1983 and 1988 Model Colleges Rules and appellants at that time were appointed as Vice- Principals and Senior Teachers were not in line of Vice-Principals. After introduction of 1993 Rules, the appellants were rightly redesignated as Assistant Professor. The Rules of 1983 and 1988 were repealed and there is no post of Vice-Principal and the appellants have clearly stated in memo. of appeals that they never challenged their redesignation. We cannot accept these arguments and have also made it clear while implementing judgment of the Tribunal in Miscellaneous Petition No,29 of 1995, decided on 7-5-1995, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs and the objections raised by Mr. Fazal Elahi Siddiqi, Advocate, were repelled. There is no cavil about the proposition that Government can change rules but not to the detriment, and on this we derive support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1995 SCM R 1852 (Syed Afzal Ahmed Hydari and another v. Secretary, Defence Production Division), and the relevant paragraph reads as under:-- "The change in the rules has not been proved to be mala fide, as it does not benefit or harm any specified person or group of persons. The change in question appears to be in consequence of Establishment Divjsion's Office Memo, No,1/32/83-R-4, dated 24-7-1984 addressed to the Defence Production Division, reproduced in Federal 'Service Tribunal's judgment dated 7--3-1993 in Appeals No,169-K of 1988, No,220-R of 1988, No,109-K of 1991), No,84-R of 1989 and No,91-K of 1991. It appears to be a step towards specialisation of each of the five groups. In any case, it cannot be said that change in the Rules is to the detriment of the petitioners or the persons similarly situated."
We also like to refer to 1994 SCM R 254 (Manzoor Ahmad and 5 others v. Director-General, Pakistan P.W.D. and 2 others), and according to the ratio of this judgment, the appellants who were admittedly holding senior post in regular manner carrying higher responsibilities than the Senior Teachers who were in selection grade, which was a feeding cadre of Vice-Principal, we had directed the Ministry of Education that promotion cases of the appellants to the post of Associate Professors (B-19) be processed within three months because the appellants had already been given acting charge of the post of Principal (B-19).
13. To sum up, the appellants filed appeals against combined seniority list whereby both cadres of Vice-Principals (B-18) and Senior Teachers were merged into one. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 11-11-1993 allowed the appeals and it was held that merger of cadre of the Vice-Principals and the Senior Teachers was illegal and that separate seniority lists shall be maintained of each cadre as was being done up to 1992. This judgment was challenged by the Government as well as by one of the private respondents in the Supreme Court but petitions were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the judgment of the Tribunal was maintained. The appellants also challenged current charge arrangement given to the Senior Teachers, who are now private respondents, before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by judgment dated 13-12-1993 observed that the Vice-Principals carrying higher administrative and academic responsibilities could not be equated with the Senior Teachers and had preferential rights for consideration of their cases for current charge in comparison to the Senior Teachers. This judgment was not challenged by any of the respondents, with the result that the appellants were given acting charge of Principal and they are continuing as such till today. After introduction of 4-tier formula in the Model Colleges, vide Notification dated 15-11-1993, whereby the Vice-Principals and the Senior Teachers were redesigned as Assistant Professors and merged into one cadre; and under Rule 5 thereof, their cases were to be referred to FPSC for interview for the purpose of regularization. The appellants being aggrieved again brought their grievances before the Tribunal by filing separate appeals on 13-12-1993. The contentions of the appellants before the Tribunal was accepted and the Tribunal by judgment dated 9-4-1994 struck down rule 5 and it was further held that merger of seniority of the Vice- Principals and the Senior Teachers was not fair and just because due to reorganization their substantive status could not be relegated and accordingly the department was directed to prepare a seniority list within 4 months in the light of the above observations. The Government and one of the private respondents namely Mr. Abdul Hayee Sheikh challenged this judgment in the Supreme Court but leave to appeal was refused by judgment dated 16-1-1995. Thus, it is clear that the reliefs claimed by the appellants, right from 1993 till today were accepted by the Tribunal and finally upheld at the Supreme Court level and as a consequence thereof the appellants have been given acting charge of Principal, a Grade-19 post, and their cases have been submitted to the Establishment Division for regular promotion as Associate Professors (B-19) by the Ministry of Education, which are still pending for finalization and two months' time has been allowed to the Establishment Division for the purpose. But as far as the impugned seniority lists are concerned these have not been framed in compliance of the judgment of the Tribunal passed in Appeals Nos.
267 to 271(R) of 1993, decided on 11-11-1993 and are of no consequence, as it was to be prepared for the category of Teachers which has never been done. As regards the other prayer of the appellants, the Ministry of Education in their comments have rightly affirmed that no adverse order to put the appellants in a disadvantageous position shall be passed and their cases have been sent to the Establishment Division for their regular promotion as Associate Professors (B-19).
Consequently, the impugned seniority lists are set aside and the appeals are allowed in the above terms.