' Through this Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the list of Assistant Engineers dated 24-9-1994 has been challenged and it has been prayed that the seniority list may be declared as without lawful authority with a consequential direction to respondent No,1 to draw the seniority list in accordance with law and rules.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Engineer in the year 1967.
He was promoted as Assistant Engineer (BPS-17) vide order, dated 25-5-1979, and was regularized/confirmed on the recommendation of the Departmental Selection Committee. He qualified AMIE in December, 1981 as a result of which he was entitled to reckon his seniority with graduate Assistant Engineers. Respondents Nos, 1 and 3 were inducted in the service of respondent authority as Assistant Engineers on 8-4-1980 and 5-4-1980 respectively. They were on probation for two years. However, vide order, dated 4-10-1982 their probation was extended for a period of six months. The petitioner in the seniority list issued on 1-11-1986 was shown at serial No,22, while respondents Nos.2 and 3 were shown at serial Nos.23 and 24 respectively. Respondent No,3 filed an appeal against the said seniority list which was accepted vide order dated 22-2-1989 and respondents Nos.2 and 3 regularized in service with effect from their date of appointment.
3. On 28-9-1989 seniority list of Assistant Engineers as it stood on 1-9-1989 was issued, the petitioner was relegated in seniority and was placed at serial No,22 while respondents Nos.2 and 3 were placed at serial Nos.13 and 14. The petitioner submitted an application on 28-10-1989 for supplying him certain documents to enable him to tile an appeal/representation but the application remained unattended. A provisional seniority list of Assistant Engineers was issued on 4-6-1994 in which petitioner was placed at serial No,8 while respondents Nos.2 and 3 were placed at serial Nos.4 and 5 respectively. The petitioner tiled representation against the said seniority list on 3-7-1994. The final seniority list has been issued without informing the petitioner. The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has challenged the seniority list.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed earlier than respondents Nos.2 and 3 and the list has been prepared unilaterally without affording opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. The regularization of the service of the respondents Nos.2 and 3 from their induction in service will not affect his rights as he was not heard in the representation/appeal tiled by respondent No,3. Hence, the decision passed on 22-2-1989 will not affect the seniority list of the petitioner. It is further contended that respondent No,3 had not agitated the seniority list issued on 1-11-1986 and the suo motu exercise has been taken by the Department. It is also contended that the probation period of respondents Nos.2 and 3 was extended on 4-10-1982 and they remained on probation for 2-1/2 years which order has been recalled after 6-1/2 years. It is further contended that under rule 7(4) of Lahore Development Authority Service Regulations Rules the order, dated 22-2-1989 is against the said rules. It has also been contended that under rule 8 of the Lahore Development Authority (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1978 the seniority list has to be reckoned from the date of confirmation and in accordance with the provisions of rule 7(4), thered, the date of confirmation in case of respondents Nos.2 and 3 was 4-10-1982. The petitioner had already been confirmed as Assistant Engineer, hence, the disturbance of the seniority list and placing the petitioner after respondents Nos.2 and 3 is illegal and unlawful.
5. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of L.D.A. Department has opposed this petition on the ground that the petitioner cannot be considered as senior to respondents Nos.2 and 3, as respondents Nos.2 and 3 were inducted in service and appeal of respondent No,3 was accepted and the probation period has been considered and their seniority has been fixed from the date of their joining. The petitioner has qualified AMIE in December, 1981 admittedly before the joining of respondents Nos.2 and 3 as Assistant Engineers who already qualified as AMIE when they joined the service hence the petitioner before 1981 was placed in seniority list of Assistant Engineers as having qualification of AMIE. On the other hand, respondents Nos.2 and 3 were having AMIE and they have rightly been declared as senior to the petitioner. It is Further contended that the earlier seniority list was duly notified, and the petitioner was aware of the said list issued in 1989 which was never challenged by him before any forum. Hence, he cannot challenge the seniority list which has been subsequently prepared on the basis of earlier seniority list. It is further contended that the petitioner has no case and this writ petition may be dismissed.
6. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 admittedly joined the service on 8-4-1980 and 5-4-1980 respectively. They remained on probation till. 4-10-1982 and their period of probation was extended for six months.
' Respondent No, 3 tiled an appeal which was accepted vide order, dated 22-2-1989 and respondents Nos.2 and 3 were confirmed/regularized with effect from the date of their appointment. Hence, this order was never challenged by the petitioner before any forum. The seniority list was also prepared on the basis of this order and was duly notified on 22-2-1989 and respondents Nos.2 and 3 were shown senior to the petitioner and were placed at serial Nos.13 and 14 while the petitioner was placed at serial No,22. The petitioner again did not challenge the seniority list issued on 28-9-1989 and lost his right to challenge the seniority list subsequently appeared in 1994 which is impugned in this writ petition. Even otherwise the respondents Nos.2 and 3 were duly nullified and they were confirmed from the date of their joining. Admittedly the respondents Nos.2 and 3 are senior to the petitioner who has qualified as AMIE in 1981 while respondents Nos.2 and 3 were inducted in service on 8-4-1980 and 5-4-1980 respectively. The claim of the petitioner that he was senior to them is due to the reason that they were not confirmed for about 2-1/2 years. The confirmation of-respondents Nos.2 and 3 has been made with effect from their date of appointment and that order remained unchallenged though has been passed on the back of the petitioner as the petitioner was not the necessary party in those proceedings.
The petitioner after passing of the order and even after the issuance of the final seniority list in 1989 did not agitate the said list and accepted the same, when he was placed junior to respondents Nos.2 and 3. Now, he has lost all of his rights after lapse of so many years. The petitioner remained sleeping for about 5 years after the issuance of seniority list of 1989. Even on merits the petitioner has no case and has failed to pursuade this Court for interference in writ jurisdiction as he admittedly joined the service when he was not qualified as AMIE. There is no merits in this case which is dismissed.