AKHTAR HASSAN, CHAIRMAN - The appellant Qari Muhammad Ijaz, Junior Instructor (Auto & Diesel)
Govt. College of Technology, Lahore as also respondent No. 3 Ijaz Hameed, were both junior Instructors. The appellant was admittedly senior to the respondent but the latter was deputed for a training earlier in time. The appellant was not permitted to take the training because the Principal thought that his class would he left without being looked after. Thus, he was denied opportunity of taking the training which respondent No. 3 completed earlier in time and by virtue of that qualification, he was promoted to BS-17 on 18.6.1990. The appellant was correspondingly ignored for want of the training. He however completed the same subsequently and obtained the Diploma on 13.5.1991 whereafter he pressed his right to get the promotion by virtue of his seniority agitating that he was ignored earlier for no fault of his. His representation was dismissed and hence the instant appeal.
2. It was pleaded in defence that there was none else to look after the job of the appellant and that was the reason why respondent No. 3 was preferred for being deputed for the training. It was added that when the post for promotion fell vacant on 18.6.1990, respondent No. 3 being eligible was promoted against it but the appellant being not yet qualified, had to be ignored.
3. There was no denying the fact that the appellant was senior to respondent No. 3. He should have been deputed for the course by virtue of his seniority. It was not the respondent's case that this record was otherwise un-satisfactory rendering him unfit for getting the training. Conversely, when his record was clean and he was senior as well, he should have been given preference to all others for getting the training. He was detained by the Principal as he had none else to look after the relevant duties but this could not be a reason to traverse seniority of the appellant. Some one should have been brought in by transfer or by initial recruitment to till the post temporarily. The reason for rendering his seniority ineffective was not sound. Later, however, he got the training and became eligible to be promoted. By virtue of seniority which was a vested right he had a genuine claim to be preferred to respondent No. 3.
4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is held entitled to be promoted as Instructor (BS-17) in preference to respondent No. 3 even though the latter might have to he demoted.