' MUHAMMAD BASHIR JEHANGIRI, ACTG. C.J.---The above five appeals by leave of the Court call in question the order of the learned Federal Service Tribunal dated 26-6-1995 disposing of all the appeals of the private respondent No,1 in each appeal with the following observations:-- ' "...The postal Corporation submitted categorically that no person junior to the appellants has been promoted as Assistant Director PLI, and, therefore, the appellants had no cause of action to agitate before the Tribunal The seniority list of the Assistant Superintendent (Office and Field) was, however, not placed on record by either party nor was it readily available with them. Therefore, it could not be said with certainty whether any Assistant Superintendent PLI junior to the appellants had been promoted as Assistant Director without first considering the appellants in accordance with the recruitment rules of 1987. After some arguments, the counsel for both the parties agreed that a direction may be issued to the respondent Corporation to cause a seniority list of Assistant Superintendent PLI (Field and Office) so that the appellants should know their position and follow further course of action if need be. Accordingly with the consent of the parties without going into the merits of the case, we direct the respondent Corporation to prepare a seniority list of all the Assistant Superintendents PLI .(Field and Office), and circulate it amongst all concerned for objection, if any. The seniority list should be prepared and circulated within two months of the receipt of this order. With this direction, all the five appeals are disposed of."
2. The five appellants who were not parties to the litigation filed petitions for leave to appeal in each of the above cases. During the pendency of the appeals, the appellants Nos.1 to 4 were promoted and, therefore, they are no more interested in the outcome of these appeals.
3. Leave to appeal has been granted by this Court in all the appeals in para. 3 of the leave granting order, which reads as under:-- ' "The petitioners were not parties to the respondents' appeals before the Tribunal and had no opportunity of being heard. Their case is that they belong to the cadre of Assistant Superintendent (Office) while the appellants before the Tribunal were Assistant Superintendents (Field); that the ratio of the Office and Field Assistant Superintendents is 30:70 and that, therefore, the direction for the preparation of a combined list of the Office and Field Assistant Superintendents is against law.
According to them, the order of the Tribunal must needs adversely affect their rights."
4. We have heard appellant No,5 in person and Hafiz Tariq Naseem, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the official respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4 and perused the record.
5. In the leave granting order reproduced para. 3 ante, it appears that the learned Federal Service Tribunal had in unequivocal terms reiterated the stance which had been taken by the Pakistan Postal Corporation that no person junior to the appellant No,5 had been promoted as Assistant Director PLI and, therefore, he has no cause of action to agitate any grievance before the Tribunal.
In this context it had been rightly submitted by the Pakistan Postal Corporation that the seniority list of Assistant Superintendents (Office and Field) had not been placed on the record before the Tribunal, therefore, the Tribunal had rightly observed that it could not be held with certainty as to whether any Assistant Superintendent PLI junior to the appellant No,5 had been or had not been promoted as Assistant Director.
6. The learned Tribunal with the consent of the parties and without going into the merits of the case directed the respondent Corporation to prepare a seniority list of all the Assistant Superintendents PLI (Field and Office), and circulate the same amongst all concerned for objections, if any and; that if this exercise had not been carried out it shall be carried out expeditiously but not later than 60 days from today.
7. In view of above noted direction we do not find any substance in the titled appeals being pursued by the appellant No,5 in each case. We are of the considered view that in the presence of the direction issued by the Tribunal, the appellant No,5 in particular should have waited for the circulation of the departmental seniority list and if he had felt aggrieved, he should have filed objections thereto and then proceed further against the provisional/tentative in the seniority list.
8. We, therefore, recall the leave granting order and in consequence these appeals also become infructuous. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.