' SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J.----This review petition has been directed against the judgment of this Court, dated 15-6-1998 whereby appeal filed by the petitioner herein seeking retrospective date was rejected.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Kh. Muhammad Ahsan sought a seniority against his batch-mate on the ground that all of them passed the tests etc., together but the petitioner was not recommended by the Public Service Commission without his any fault on his part. Therefore, he was obliged to invoke the writ jurisdiction of High Court, which resulted in the acceptance of his writ petition and he was appointed against the relevant post. However, he has not been given seniority from the date, from which his other batch-mates were given the same.
These contentions were raised in appeal and were repelled on the ground that in previous round of litigation the Service Tribunal had dismissed his appeal relating to the dispute of his seniority but he did not file any appeal to this Court and that the petitioner claims seniority from the date when he was not in service which is not envisaged by the relevant rules.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the seniority of the petitioner herein has been fixed as has been visualized in rule 8 of the Rules known as Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1977 (hereinafter shall be called as Rules).
He has argued that the recommendations of the petitioner's appointment were withheld by the Public Service Commission for no fault on his part and thus he should be given retrospective seniority i.e. From the date when he was not in service. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the following authorities in support of his contention.
' In a case reported as Ch. Nazir Muhammad v. Government of Punjab through the Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore and 11 others (1986 SCM R 715) a review petition was dismissed observing that by implementing the relevant rules, the benefit could not be denied to the petitioner, provided there is no contrary provision in law.
' In case reported as Ghulam Akram and 5 others v. Syed Shabbir Hussain Shah and 10 others (PLD 1986 Azad J&K 56) it has been observed that Supreme Court has power to remand a case in exercise of its inherent power or in exercise of the powers to review. Thus, the case was remanded by the Supreme Court to the High Court to determine as to whether non-applicant had the right to prior purchase and whether he had waived the same.
4. As is evident from the authorities relied upon on behalf of the petitioner, the same have no nexus with the facts of the case in hand. Thus there is no valid reason for admitting this petition for review for regular hearing. So far rule 8 of the Rules is .Concerned it has not been envisaged therein that a person can be given seniority from the date on which he was not in service.
' In light of what has been stated above, finding no force in the review petition it is hereby dismissed in limine.