NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.- Petitioner, Javed Iqbal Khan, has impugned judgment dated 26.10.2000 ,of learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby appeal No. 88(R)/C.E./2000 filed by him was dismissed, as being time barred and on merits as well.
2. The facts relevant for decision of this petition are that the petitioner joined the respondents department as Assistant Director Statistics (B-17) on 25.10.1982 after his selection in prescribed manner. It was a Technical post and the petitioner, through an application dated 16.1.1995, requested the respondents for consideration of his case for promotion as Director B-18 in Statistics Section and for this purpose conveyed .His willingness to forgo his promotion as Director Regional Board, Lahore (a post of B-18 in general cadre). On 14.3.1995 the petitioner repeated another application for the same purpose. The post of Director Planning (B-18) was created on 24.5.1995 by abolishing the post of Assistant Director, Statistics. The case of the petitioner for promotion to. The newly created post was not referred to the DPC, although the case of respondent No. 3 Mr. Muhammad Nazir for promotion as Director, Regional Board was processed at that time and he was promoted, as such, on 28.6.1995.
3. In the Seniority List dated 15.10.1997, the petitioner was shown senior to the respondent No. 3 and a revised seniority list was circulated on 19.6.1-998, whereby the officers were categorised into technical and non-technical cadres. The petitioner's request was for antedating his promotion as Director Planning, as per his applications dated 14.5.1999 and 5.7.1999 was turned down on 6.12.1999 and respondent No. 3 was declared' senior to him against which he preferred departmental appeal, which was dismissed on 3.3.2000. Being aggrieved against above order, he filed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, but the same was dismissed by the judgment, which has been impugned in this petition.
4. The departmental appeal was filed by the petitioner on 22.1 2.1999, which was time barred by 3- 1/2 Years.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner before us confined his arguments to the extent that letter dated 6.12.1999 of Federal Employees Benevolent and Group Insurance Funds Establishment Division and letter dated 30.11.1999 of Government of Pakistan, Cabinet Secretariat, Establishment Division, be struck down, as they affect his seniority. The former states "Voluntary forfeiture of right for promotion is not a case of 'deferment'." The latter is also in terms of the former.
6. Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of Civil Servants Act of 1973 on the point of Seniority is as follows:-- "(4) Seniority in a post, service or cadre to which a civil servant is promoted shall take effect from the date of regular appointment to that post."
7. Rule 3 of Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993 reads as under:- "3. Seniority on promotion.- Seniority in a service cadre or post to which a civil servant is promoted shall take effect from the date of regular promotion to that service, cadre or posts:-
(a) Civil servants selected for promotion to higher posts on an earlier date shall be senior to those selected for such promotion on a later date;
(b) Civil servants selected for promotion to higher posts in one batch shall on their promotion to the higher post, retain their inter se seniority as in the lower post; and
(c) Civil servants eligible for promotion who could not be considered for promotion in the original reference in circumstances beyond their control or whose case was deferred while their juniors were promote to the higher post, shall, on promotion, without super session, take their seniority with the original batch."
8. It is noted that the petitioner was promoted on 3.10.1995 and the respondent on 28.6.1995. The general rule is that a Civil Servant promoted to higher post on an earlier date shall be senior to those who were promoted later on. Exception to this rule is provided in sub rules (b) and (c) of Rule 3 and none of these sub-rules is attracted to the facts of the instant case. The petitioner, at his on, opted for his promotion as Director Statistics and this fact takes away his case from the ambit of aforesaid sub-rules. Neither his case was governed by the expression beyond control" and nor it was of deferment. Striking down aforesaid letters would mean to declare the petitioner senior to respondent No. 3, which the former is not entitled. The judgment of the Tribunal is in accordance with the rules and is not open to any criticism, nor any interference is warranted.