KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J.- This Petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.2.1998 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the appeal of the petitioner assailing the seniority list as it stood on 13.2.1992 issued by Secretary Food Department showing the petitioner at Serial No. 3 and Abdul Qayyum Lashari the contesting respondent at Serial No. 1, was dismissed. The date of continuous appointment to the cadre of Assistant Director of the petitioner in the said seniority list was shown as 25.3.1987 and that of the contesting respondent as 1.4:1985.
After rejection of the departmental representation filed by the petitioner by the Secretary and another representation by the Governor of the Punjab vide letter dated 26.5.1993 service appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Service Tribunal.
2. The case of the petitioner in the appeal was that he joined service as Food Technologist (BS-17) and his seniority in the cadre of Assistant Directors, to which the contesting respondent also belongs, is to be drawn combined as per provisions of the service rules which provide for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (BS-18) from amongst the Assistant Directors as well as Food Technologists; that in the seniority list issued on 1.7.1987, the petitioner appeared at S. No. 6, that contesting respondent started his services as District Food Controller (BS-16) on 10.7.1976 and his services were terminated on 13.11.1977, much before the appointment of the petitioner as Food Technologist on 25.3.1987; that the said respondent filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the termination of his services, which was rejected but the department on its own reinstated the contesting respondent without back benefits in February, 1982 and promoted him on acting charge basis in March, 1985. The said respondent was promoted as Assistant Director on regular basis on 26.12.1990 on the completion of the requisite experience of 7 years and therefore the petitioner who was appointed on 25.3.1987 remains senior to the said respondent on. Account of earlier date of appointment. The petitioner further asserted that the seniority list issued in 1987 was circulated and no objection was raised by anybody but the same was revived in 1992 to make the contesting respondent senior to the petitioner although the said respondent was re-appointed after his reinstatement. It is also asserted that the promotion of the petitioner as Deputy Director Food is illegal as the petitioner who is senior to him has not been considered for promotion, that promotion on acting charge basis does not confer the right of seniority as per rule 13.3 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions) of Service Rules, 1975. The appeal was contested on the pleas that the contesting respondent alongwith Malik Khadim Hussain and others was appointed as District Food Controller with effect from 10.7.1976, but the case was reviewed under MLI 21 of 1977 and his services were terminated but he was reinstated vide order dated 8.2.1982 treating the intervening period as leave extraordinary without pay. It was added that he was promoted as Assistant Director on acting charge basis on 24.3.1985 under the wrong assumption that he had not completed the requisite period of seven years of experience in BS-16, but latter he was promoted as Assistant Director on regular basis with effect from 26.12.1990. The contesting respondent pleaded that Malik Khadim Hussain who was junior to him was promoted as Assistant Director on regular basis with effect from 24.3.1985 and on his representation his date of regular appointment was also decided to he 1.4.1985. It was also asserted that Saeed Ahmed Khan and Latif Lodhi who were also junior to the petitioner were promoted as Assistant Director on 31.3.1985. These promotions of his juniors were not challenged by the petitioner and, therefore, on according him his due place in the seniority list and in the cadre no grievance can be made by the petitioner who had not challenged the promotion of the juniors to him.
3. The Service Tribunals, after hearing the parties, has upheld the contention of the contesting respondent. It is to be noted that the Secretary Food Department had supported the case of the contesting respondent as the position taken by the Government before the Service Tribunal was that the contesting respondent had completed the requisite experience on 10.10.1987 and as such was entitled to be promoted as Assistant Director n regular basis w.e.f. 10.10.1987 but due to late meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee he was promoted alongwith others with effect from 26.12.1990. It was explained that the name of the contesting respondent did not appear in the seniority list of 1987 because at the time is appointment had not been regularized as Assistant Director, and that the position in the impugned seniority list was assigned recognizing right of seniority and in the light of circular instructions dated 9.9.1989 issued by he Government.
4. The contesting respondent had in fact completed seven years of service as District Food Controller on 9.7.1983 as he was appointed as such on 10.7.1976 although he was regularly promoted as Assistant 'rector w.e.f 26.12.1990. The respondent should have been considered or promotion w.e.f. Any date after he completed seven years of service on .7.1983. Rana Saeed Ahmed Khan and Latif Lodhi who were admittedly junior to the contesting respondent as District Food Controller were, however, promoted as Assistant Directors w.e.f. 31.3.1985 and 8.5.1985 respectively and as such the contesting respondent was rightly assigned the date of 1.4.1985 for appointment to the cadre in the impugned seniority list as it stood on 13.12.1992. Obviously under the rules the seniority of the contesting respondent over juniors could not be disturbed. The petitioner who remains junior to the afore-mentioned persons by virtue of later date of continuous appointment to the grade cannot in fairness claim seniority over the contesting respondent who is admittedly senior to the said persons. This is the view which has prevailed with the Punjab Service Tribunal. No justifiable exception can be taken to the said view.
5. No question of law of public importance is involved in the matter. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the Petition is dismissed.