1. ' DR. GHOUS MUHAMMAD, J.---Through this service appeal the appellant has claimed seniority in the rank and grade of Senior Civil Judge vis-a-vis respondents Nos, 1 to 8.
2. ' The backdrop of this appeal is that the appellant was appointed as a Civil Judge on regular basis through the Sindh Public Service Commission vide a notification, dated 18-12-1985. In such notification the appellant was placed senior to other respondents Nos, 1 to 8.
3. ' At material times in the appellant's A.C.R. Some adverse remarks were recorded by the reporting officer whose assessm ent was based upon a period extending from 2-6-1988 to 10-9-1988, which aggregated to 3 months and 8 days. Against such adverse remarks the appellant had filed a departmental representation which was partially accepted and communicated to the appellant through order, dated 30-11-1989, whereby the adverse remarks though expunged were to be treated as a "piece of advice", the adverse remarks "below average" and "not yet fit for promotion" were allowed to remain on the A.C.R. Of the appellant. Admittedly, the appellant did not prefer any appeal against the order of the departmental authority, dated 30-11-1989, which attained finality. In June 1992, the names of the appellant alongwith his batch-mates were placed before the then Departmental Promotion Committee, which found the appellant not fit for promotion on account of a "patchey record" and the adverse remarks existing on the record, in view whereof the appellant was not promoted. Accordingly, the Government through notification, dated 21-6-1992, promoted other judicial officers, while superseding/ignoring the appellant. Thereafter, through another notification, dated 26-10-1992, the appellant was promoted as a Senior Civil Judge on regular basis albeit on the same record which continued since 1989. Anyhow, a consequential seniority list, dated 19-11-1992, was prepared wherein the appellant was shown below in the seniority list than the respondents Nos, 1 to 8. It is only against such seniority list that the appellant preferred a departmental representation which was rejected through order, dated 2-5-1993. It is against such rejection that the appellant has preferred the present appeal under section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
4. ' Mr. M.M. Aqil, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that on the basis of an assessm ent of 3 months and 8 days the learned reporting officer had no basis to come to the conclusion that the appellant was "below average" and not yet "fit for promotion". He has also vehemently contended that there was no material on record to support the observation of the Departmental Promotion Committee that the appellant had a "patchy record" of service.
5. Consequently, directions were issued to the learned A.A.-G., Mr. Syedain Zaidi, to inspect the record of the appellant and submit a report as to whether there was any material on record to support the fact that the appellant had a "patchy record" and that he was below average. The learned A.A.-G.
6. Made enquiries and submitted before the Court that there was nothing on record to support the contention that the appellant's record was "patchy" or that he was "below average". The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the following judgments and orders:--
(i) Malik Naeem Hasan v. Lahore High Court 1995 PLC (C.S.) 1173;
(ii) Mian Khalid Masud v. Chief Secretary 1992 PLC (C.S.) 760;
(iii) Government of Punjab v. Ehsanul Haq Sethi, PLD 1986 SC 684;
(iv) Syed Afzal Ahmed Hyderi v. Secretary Establishment Division, 1985 PLC (C.S.) 521;
(v) Muhammad Sadiq Khokhar v. Engineer-in-Chief Joint Staff HQ, 1987 PLC (C.S.) 398;
(vi) Javed Dastagir Mirza v. Additional Chief Secretary, 1992 PLC (C.S.) 1036;
(vii) Rauf Ahmed v. Secretary to Government of Punjab 1984 PLC (C.S.) 287;
(viii) Muhammad Ramzan Chaudhry v. S . A . Naeem, 1983 PLC (C S ) 218; ' We have given our anxious thought to the matter at hand. It is an admitted position that against the notification, dated 21-6-1992, whereby the appellant had been superseded, no departmental representation or appeal had been preferred by the appellant, while it is also not the case that the appellant was not cognizant of such notification. Whatever may be the position on merits, the appellant's supersession stood finalized through notification, dated 21-6-1999. The appellant did not challenge the same. The challenge to the seniority list, dated 19-11-1992, cannot cover the challenge to the notification, dated 21-6-1992, since a seniority list is only a consequential order of the original order/notification determining the seniority, the main order being the notification omitting to promote the aggrieved person. It would not be out of place to mention that appeals before the Service Tribunal are provided by section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973, against any "final order". The term "order" cannot be given any restricted connotation and as held in Muhammad Anis Qureshi v. Secretary Ministry of Communication 1986 PLC (C.S.) 664, the word "order" as used in section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, is used in a wider sense to include any communication which adversely affects a civil servant. In our opinion this judgment by the Federal Service Tribunal is a correct pronouncement of law, in view whereof the notification, dated 21-6- 1992, whereby the appellant had been ignored from being promoted, was an appealable order where against neither a departmental representation was made nor an appeal preferred. A seniority list per se does not confer any vested right. Also reference to a seniority list on its own is not material for the purposes of establishing seniority (see Saleemullah v. 1) Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad (2) Maj. (Retd.) Haji Muhammad Arif Chaudhry (3) Maj. (Retd.) Sultan Ali Mehmood. (4) Maj. (Retd.) Muhammad Habib Khan.
7. Saleemullah v. (1) Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad;
(2) Maj. (Retd.) Habib Ullah Khan Niazi; (3) Maj (Retd.) Muhammad Akram Ch.; (4) Maj. (Retd.)
8. Mukhtar Ul Mulk Rajpoot 1995 SCMR 1865. In events where the seniority list only gives a consequential effect to seniority already determined I through an earlier order or notification, the aggrieved person has to challenge the latter and mere challenge to the seniority list is of no avail.
9. Correspondingly, where the seniority list by itself is the first determination of seniority, the cause of action to the aggrieved person arises from the date/communication of the seniority list as nothing earlier exists to be challenged. In the present case the seniority list was only a consequential order giving effect to the seniority determined through the notification, dated 21-6-1992. Even if we were to assume that the challenge to the seniority list, dated 19-11-1992, is a challenge to the notification of supersession, dated 26-10-1992, the departmental representation as also the present appeal would become time-barred as regards the challenge to the notification, dated 21-6-1992. It is needless to mention that it is the duty of the Court to notice the point of limitation even if such plea is not raised (see Hakim Muhammad Buta v. Habib Ahmed PLD 1985 SC 153).
10. ' While we dismiss the present appeal on regards as aforesaid, we are of the view that looking into the facts and circumstances of the matter the Government and its concerned department shall be at liberty to make corrections in the seniority of the appellant viz-a-viz other persons including respondents Nos, 1 to 8. Such directions had been given in Muhammad Fazal Khan v. Azad Government 1986 PLC (C.S.) 710, a judgment by the Service Tribunal of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, which we cite with approval on the point that where the appeal though dismissed on grounds of limitation, a direction can be given as herein. There shall be no order as to costs.