' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad dated 23rd December, 2000 whereby service appeal filed by petitioner claiming seniority against Mushtaq Ahmed respondent No,3 has been dismissed. Operative para. From the impugned judgment is reproduced hereinbelow for convenience:-- ' "We have examined the above rule and heard the arguments of both the parties and we have reached the conclusion that rule iii(a) mentioned above is very clear and states that if the person who was already holding the same post on ad hoc basis he would count his seniority from the date of recommendation by the Federal Public Service Commission (page 225 ESTACODE, 1996). We have also found from the record that no provisional or final seniority list was existing during the period from 1990 to 1998 due to the merger, separation and again merger of Divisions, so the claim of the appellant as having remained senior to Mushtaq Ahmed for about 7/8 years is not correct."
2. Precisely stating facts of the case are that respondent Mushtaq Ahmed was appointed as Research Officer (BPS-17) in the Ministry of Culture, Sports, Tourism and Youth Affairs, Islamabad vide Notification No,3(3)/89-Admn.I, dated 12th January, 1991. Subsequently, petitioner was also promoted in BPS-17 w.e.f, 26th May, 1991. Petitioner being aggrieved from the seniority assigned to respondent No,3, approached to the department for declaring him senior than him on the strength of arguments that he was not working against the substantive post but on a post of N.-W.F.P.
Quota, therefore, he will be given seniority w.e.f, 4th December; 1998, the date on which he actually joined the substantive post instead of assigning him seniority w.e.f, 19th January 1991, as per notification of his appointment referred to hereinabove. Representation so made in this behalf by petitioner was turned down by the Department, therefore, he approached the Federal Service Tribunal for redressal of his grievance but without success. As such instant petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the notification, dated 12th January, 1991 and stated that the respondent was working on temporary basis as stoppage arrangements for a period commencing from 9th January 1991 to 17th December, 1992, therefore, his this period would not be counted towards his regular service. However, he would be deemed into regular service of the Department from the date when he was allowed to hold the charge of the substantive vacancy. In sequence of his arguments he further stated that Mushtaq Ahmed respondent No,3 was admittedly appointed on ad hoc basis and subsequently his case was regularized, much after the promotion of petitioner.
4. We have heard the learned counsel and have also gone through the impugned judgments as well as the general pinciple of seniority published in ESTACODE Edition 1989 page 227. Relevant para. Therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF SENIORITY"
A. Direct recruits thorugh the Federal Public Service Commission.
(i) Officers recruited directly by the FPSC through an earlier open advertisement would rank senior to those recruited through a subsequent open advertisement.
(ii) If two or more persons are recommended in open advertisement by the FPSC, their inter se seniority would be determined in the order of merit assigned by the FPSC.
(iii) If only one candidate is recommended in open advertisement by the FPSC, he would count his seniority from the date of recommendation by the FPSC, or the date of joining the post; whichever is later--
(a) if the person already holding the same post on ad hoc basis, he would count his seniority from the date of recommendation by the FPSC;
(b) ...........................
5. A perusal of above instructions/guidelines indicates that notwithstanding the fact that a person is holding the charge of ad hoc post but if he has been appointed as regular employee by the Federal Public Service Commission, he would be deemed to be in the permanent service of the Government and he would be treated for the purpose of reckoning his seniority in the service on the date when he was recommended by the Federal Public Service Commission.
6. In view of above principle if the case of respondent is adjudged no other conclusion can be formed except that respondent Mushtaq Ahmad after his selection though worked against ad hoc post but his length of service for determining seniority will be counted from the date of recommendation made in his favour by the Federal Public Service Commission in BPS-17 and petitioner who was admittedly promoted after respondent's recruitment would be junior to him in rank. This aspect of the case can be examined from another angle namely if respondent was not recruited against a substanti post then what was necessary for him to qualify FPSC Examination.
However, as far as his posting is concerned that could have been made against any post whether it is a substantive or temporary but date of his induction ,into service by FPSC will remain relevant for determining his seniority.
' Thus, in view of above discussion, we see no merits in this petition as such same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.