' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---This appeal, by leave of the Court, is directed against order dated 13-8-2002 passed by the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) on the application under section 12(2) read with section 151, C.P.C. Of the respondents Nos.
1 and 2, whereby judgment dated 17-6-1991 in Service Appeal No,174 of 1989 was clarified/modified.
2. The appellant and one Dr. Riaz Ahmad, were appointed as Assistant Professors of Surgery (BS-18) through N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) with effect from 16-9-1978. They were promoted as Associate Professors of Surgery (BS-19) on 19-7-1980.
The appellant was further promoted as Professor of Surgery (BS-20) with effect from 10-1-1988 on acting charge basis vide Notification dated 10-1-1988 read with corrigendum Notification dated 13- 1-1998. There were three rounds of litigation up to this Court between the appellant and Dr. Riaz Ahmad regarding their merit and seniority inter se, as determined by the Commission. Finally, Dr. Riaz Ahmed was declared senior to the appellant. Therefore, the appellant was reverted to the post of Associate Professor of Surgery (BS-19) by the Government of N.-W.F.P. By Notification dated 4-6- 1989. The appellant filed Appeal No,174 of 1989 there against which was disposed of by the Tribunal, by judgment dated 17-6-1991 with the direction that since, in the meantime, the appellant had been re-promoted as Professor (BS-20) with effect from 22-1-1991 against a newly sanctioned post, he would be given benefits of his two years service which he had rendered as Professor in BS-20 but that would, in no way, change the inter se seniority of Dr. Riaz Ahmad and the appellant. The Government of N.-W.F.P. Issued a Notification dated 21-2-1995 whereby the Notification dated 4-6- 1989 of the reversion of the appellant was rescinded and the intervening period from 4-6-1989 to 21-1-1991 was counted for increments but without arrears.
3. On the other hand, the respondent No,1 was appointed as Assistant Professor of Psychiatry (BS- 18) with effect from 8-11-1986. He was promoted as Associate Professor (BS-19) and as Professor (BS-20) on 15-3-1988 and 6-2-1990 respectively. The respondent No,2 joined service as Assistant Professor of Ophthalmology with effect from 16-9-1978. He was promoted as Associate Professor (BS-19) on 25-2-1986, as Professor (BS-20) on acting charge basis on 2-7-1988 and on regular basis with effect from 8-1-1991. A seniority list of the Professors (BS-20) of the Health Department, N.-W.F.P., was notified on 19-6-1998 wherein the respondents Nos.1 and 2 were shown junior to the appellant.
4. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 moved separate applications dated. 5-5-2001 under section 12(2) read with section 151,. C.P.C. Before the Tribunal for recalling its earlier judgment dated 17-6-1991 passed in Appeal No,174 of 1989 in favor of the petitioner. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 13-8-2002, disposed of both the applications and directed the Government of N.-W.F.P. To assign seniority to the appellant as Professor {BS-20) from the date of the decision of this Court i,e, 12-5- 1990 in Civil Review Petition No,30 of 1989 and to issue revised seniority list of Professors (BS-20) accordingly. Hence this appeal, by leave of the Court, against the impugned order dated 13-8- 200,2.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant had been duly appointed as Professor of Surgery (BS-20) on regular basis by Notification dated 10-1-1988, whereas the respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 were subsequently promoted as Professors. Therefore, the appellant could not be relegated to a junior position qua them. It was further submitted that the Tribunal was denuded of any power of review of its own judgment as laid down in the case of S.A. Rizvi v.
Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission and another 1986 SCM R 965. Therefore, .The impugned order dated 13-8-2002 passed by the Tribunal by recalling its earlier judgment dated 17-6-1991 passed in Appeal No,174 of 1989 was without jurisdiction. The learned counsel contended that the judgment dated 17-6-1991 of, the Tribunal had been carried out by the Government, by Notification dated 21- 2-1995 whereby the earlier 'Notification dated 4-6-1989 of reversion of the appellant to the post of Associate Professor (BS-19) was rescinded. The seniority list of Professors (BS-20) was also notified on 19-6-1998 whereby the appellant was rightly shown senior to the respondents Nos.1 and 2. The learned counsel lastly submitted that this Court had finally settled the controversy by its judgments dated 28-3-1989 and 12-5-1990 respectively passed in Civil Appeal No,14 of 1988 and Civil Review Petition No,30 of 1989 to which no exception could be taken.
6. On the other hand, the learned Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. Argued that the appellant had not been promoted as Professor of Surgery (BS-20) on 10-1-1988 on regular basis but the said promotion was on acting charge basis pending the seniority dispute of the appellant and Dr. Riaz Ahmed (since retired). A corrigendum Notification dated 13-1-1988 was issued by the Government of N.-W.F.P. Whereby the inadvertent omission in the earlier Notification dated 10-1-1988 was rectified, and promotion of the appellant was clearly shown to be on acting charge basis. However, the appellant was promoted on regular basis with effect from 22-1-1991 as Professor of Surgery (BS-20) or in any case with effect from 12-5-1990 as held by the Tribunal by the impugned order.
Therefore, the appellant could not claim seniority over the respondent No,1 who was promoted as Professor (BS-20) earlier on 6-2-1990. The learned Law Officer further pointed out that Dr. Riaz Ahmed (since retired) had been promoted as Professor of Surgery (BS-20) on regular basis with effect from 26-12-1989 and was, therefore, rightly treated to be senior to the appellant.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 2 contended that there was only one post of Professor of Surgery (BS-20) available at the relevant time to which Dr. Riaz Ahmed was promoted as such under the orders of this Court with effect from 26-12-1989. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant was promoted as Professor of Surgery (BS-20) on acting charge basis with effect from 10-1-1988 pending the finalization of the dispute of merit and seniority between Dr. Riaz Ahmed and the appellant.
8. We have heard the learned Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. And the learned counsel for the parties at length. We find that the earlier rounds of litigation controversy involved the merit, seniority and promotion of the appellant and one Dr. Riaz Ahmed (since retired) which was set at rest by this Court by judgments dated 26-12-1989 and 12-5-1990. Subsequently, the Tribunal, by its judgment dated 17-6-1991 passed in Appeal No,174 of 1989 directed the Government of N.-W.F.P. To give the benefits of two years of service to the appellant which he had rendered as Professor (BS-20) for all matters which might be beneficial A to the appellant without changing the inter se seniority of Dr. Riaz Ahmad and the appellant. The judgment dated 17-6-1991 of the Tribunal affected the rights of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 without impleading or providing them any opportunity of hearing. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified to rectify an obvious error and modify its earlier judgment by changing the date of promotion of the appellant as Professor (BS-20) from 10-1-1988 to 12-5-1990 in the light of the judgment dated 12-5-1990 of this Court in Civil Review Petition No,30 of 1989. Therefore, he could not be, senior to the respondent No,1 who had been promoted as Professor. (BS-20) on regular basis earlier on 6-2-1990. However, the appellant would be placed as Professor (BS-20) with effect from 12-5-1990 'earlier than the respondent No,2 who was promoted as such on 8-1-1991 in terms of the impugned judgment. The Tribunal has done substantial justice between the parties. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal does not call for any interference in the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.