CH. MUHAMMAD SARWAR, MEMBER.- This is an appeal under Section 4 of Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 against order dated 27.5.1959 whereby the selection of the appellant as Naib Tehsildar candidate alongwith 7 others vide order dated 15.3.1958 of Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division was held contrary to rules on the subject at that time and were not implemented.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant was confirmed kanungo in the year 1957.
According to the existing rules at that time, the appellant was not eligible to appear in the Naib- Tehsildar examination but Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur on 1.8.1957 recommended his case to the Secretary, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan to allow him to appear in the said examination as a special case on the clear condition that he will not claim the post of Naib-Tehsildar on the ground of passing the departmental examination of Naib-Tehsildar. The appellant was allowed to appear in the examination and qualified the examination.
2. The Commissioner, Bahawalpur vide order dated 15.3.1958 selected the appellant alongwith 7 others as Naib-Tehsildar candidate. The order dated 15.3.1958 of Commissioner, Bahawalpur was cancelled by the orders of the Governor of West Pakistan conveyed by the Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Revenue Department on 27.5.1959 being irregular selection and contrary to the rules on the subject existing at that time.
3. The appellant was compulsorily retired from service on the recommendation of District Screening Committee vide order dated 13.6.1959. The representation/appeal against the order was also rejected by the concerned authority. His mercy petition was however accepted by the Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, West Pakistan and he was re- employed as Patwari vide order dated 11.7.1966 by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Bahawalpur. He submitted numerous applications for promotion as Naib-Tehsildar on the basis of the selection made in the year 1958 but the same were rejected by the concerned authority. He was retired from service on 13.1.1992 on attaining the age of superannuation. The appellant preferred a suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge/Administrative Civil Judge, Bahawalpur on 27.6.1972 for declaration the order dated 17.6.1972 of the Commissioner, Bahawalpur reverting him to post of Patwari be set aside and he may be allowed to continue as Kanungo. The Administrative Civil Judge, Bahawalpur vide order dated 27.9.1973 decided the suit in favour of the appellant and declared the order dated 17.6.1972 passed by the Commissioner, Bahawalpur as illegal and ineffective on the rights of the appellant and entitled him to continue in service as Kanungo.
4. The appellant filed another suit for declaration and mandatory injunction in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalpur in 1980 claiming posting and promotion as Naib-Tehsildar on the basis of order dated 15.3.1958 of Commissioner, Bahawalpur. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalpur vide order dated 14.3.1981 dismissed the suit with costs. The appellant preferred appeal before the Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur. The learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur vide order dated 31.7.1983 held that the order passed by the Commissioner, Bahawalpur on 15.3.1958 be acted upon. The revision petition against the judgment of 31.7.1983 of learned Additional District Judge was filed in the High Court. The High Court vide order dated 5.9.1992 held that "both the Courts below have correctly held that the suit for declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to be posted as Naib-Tehsildar on the basis of his selection by the competent authority in the year 1958 and that he was also entitled to his seniority on the basis of his said selection, was competent and dismissed the revision petition.
5. The Province of Punjab through Collector, Bahawalpur and Commissioner, Bahawalpur preferred civil petition for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. It was granted on 19.7.1993 to examine whether in law the jurisdiction of Civil Court was not barred in the matter. Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeal No. 447 of 1993 held on 13.2.1994 that "if the documents exhibited and placed on record had been kept in view by the Courts, the erroneous conclusions drawn would not have been drawn on facts and misapplication of the law could have been avoided." The appeal was accepted, the judgments of all the three Courts on the question of jurisdiction of Civil Court in the matter were set aside.
6. The appellant preferred an appeal No. 42/96 before the Punjab Service Tribunal on 21.1.1996 praying that he may be posted as NaibTehsildar with effect from 1958 with all back benefits. The learned Chairman, Punjab Service Tribunal vide order dated 25.7.1997 admitted that appeal for regular hearing subject to all just exceptions.
7. I have heard the appellant in length and have perused the written arguments submitted by Ch. Parmoon Bashir, the learned counsel for the appellant, parawise comments submitted by the respondent No. 2, Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur and have perused record of the case. This appeal is against the order dated 27.5.1959 declaring order of Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division dated 15.3.1958 of irregular selection of the appellant and 7 others as Naib- Tehsildar candidate being contrary to the rules on the subject existing at that time. The appeal before the Tribunal was preferred on 26.1.1996 i.e. With a delay of more than 37 years. In the application of condonation of delay filed by the appellant through his learned counsel, the plea was taken that the appellant had filed the suit in Civil Court which was dealt with upto the High Court and the point of jurisdiction was not touched and therefore the appellant was not at fault.
The jurisdiction is vested by law and not by Courts and the ignorance of law is no excuse. The interesting litigation made by appellant on all available forum, has not granted him the relief claimed. After the decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 13.2.1994, no justification is left for the condonation of delay. According to Section 4(c) of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, no appeal shall lie to a Tribunal against an order or decision of a Departmental Authority made at any time before the 1st July, 1969.
8. Probably once in the entire service of the appellant, a decision favourable to him was made by the department (Revenue Deptt.) on 13.5.1958 vide which he was selected as Naib-Tehsildar candidate. The said decision/selection was declared on 27.5.1959 contrary to the rules on the subject existing at that time and cancelled being irregular selection of Naib-Tehsildar by the Governor of West Pakistan conveyed through Secretary to Government of West Pakistan, Revenue Department. The appellant cherishes its memory and prays for implementation. The plea of the appellant is that the Governor was not competent to cancel the selection made by the Commissioner. The decision of the Governor was endorsed by the Board of Revenue, Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. I have perused the order dated 13.5.1958. No ground/merit for selection as Naib Tehsildar was mentioned. Kanungo is promoted as Naib-Tehsildar on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. He was not promoted as Naib-Tehsildar. The order is thus nullity in the eyes of law. The promotion from Kanungo to Naib-Tehsildar is made on the basis of seniority-cum- fitness. The appellant does not claim seniority as he was compulsorily retired from service on 13.6.1959. He was re-employed as Patwari on 11.7.1966. He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.1.1992 as Kanungo due to courtesy of judgment dated 27.11.1973 of learned Administrative Civil Judge, Bahawalpur. The said judgment was passed without jurisdiction in the light of the judgment dated 13.2.1994 of Supreme Court of Pakistan passed in Civil Appeal No. 447 of 1993 of the Government against the appellant. He was never considered fit for promotion by the department due to unsatisfactory record of service. There is no ground for his promotion as Naib- Tehsildar w.e.f. 15.3.1958. The appeal is dismissed both on merits as well as being time-barred.
9. There will be no order as to costs.