' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.---This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23-5-2000 of Sindh Service Tribunal at Karachi, whereby Appeal No,158 of 1999 filed by respondent No,1, Ghulam Sarwar Sangi, was allowed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No,1 filed an appeal under section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973 against the order, dated 9-1-1999 passed 'by the Chairman, Enquiries and Anti-Corruption Establishment, Sindh petitioner No,3, whereby respondent No,1 was given seniority in the Enquiries and Anti-Corruption Establishment with effect from 19-6-1991 when the respondent No,1 was earlier given seniority from 15-11-1976 by the competent authority as per Notification No,S.O.III (S&GAD)-POL-1-IX/94 of Services and General Administration Department dated 5th October, 1994, issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh which appeal was allowed as per impugned judgment, hence this petition.
3. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate-General for the petitioners and perused the record.
4. The only contention of the learned Additional Advocate-General is that the learned Tribunal has not properly construed the relevant provisions of law relating to seniority of respondent No,1, consequently same is liable to be set aside.
5. The learned Additional Advocate-General was asked whether petitioner No,3, Chairman, Enquiries and Anti-Corruption Establishment can recall/set aside the Notification, dated 5th October, 1994 passed by the competent authority and issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, to which he frankly conceded that petitioner No,3 being subordinate agency to petitioners Nos.1 and 2 could not undo the said Notification. He also frankly conceded that the said Notification dated 5th October, 1994 has not so far been recalled or set aside by the same authority under whose authority it was issued by the Chief Secretary and further that the same has not been challenged by any of the private respondents. The learned Tribunal, in the concluding paragraph of the impugned judgment, has observed:-- '...From the foregoing facts, it has been observed that the appellant was allowed seniority on absorption into Anti-Corruption Establishment from the date of his initial induction as P.S.I. In the Police Department i,e, dated 15-11-1976. This fact was notified by the Chief Secretary vide Notification dated 5-10-1994 which clearly lays down that 'Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Sangi is allowed seniority in the rank of Sub-Inspector in the Anti-Corruption Establishment, Sindh w,e,f, 15-11-1976', thus it is the order issued by the competent Authority which cannot be taken away by any subordinate agency. Besides, there has been no protest from the department nor the Private Respondents against this Notification which has attained finality and is not open to assailment at this stage. Thus assigning him any seniority besides the above Notification will be in violation of the orders of the Competent Authority and hence unlawful. The plea of the defence that the Notification dated 5-10-1994 was issued without notice to the respondents is absurdity as the Competent Authority is not supposed to consult the officers to be affected by an order. However, it was for the respondents to have agitated against the said order and challenged it before the appropriate forum, which was not done."
"We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that his appeal was not rejected on law nor on facts.
We, therefore, allow the plea of the appellant and set aside order dated 9-10-1999 passed by respondent No,3 rejecting his representation and further direct the said Authority to implement the orders contained in Notification of 5th October, 1994 with all back/consequential benefits as prayed by the appellant. The promotion to subsequent scales will, however, be subject to the rules of passing the departmental examinations."
4. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the contention has no merit and substance. The well-reasoned judgment of the Tribunal does not call for our interference consequently, leave o appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed,