' This petition for leave to appeal has been directed against the judgment passed by the Service Tribunal on 4-10-2003, whereby the service appeal filed by respondent No,1 was accepted.
2. The necessary facts, giving rise to the present petition for leave to appeal, are that the petitioner herein was appointed in the Forest Department as Kuth Guard vide order dated 15-4-1974 who duly joined his service on 16-4-1974. On 16-3-1977 the petitioner was adjusted as Forest Guard. On 21-5- 1997 the petitioner was promoted as Forester on the basis of recommendations of the Selection Committee. Against the promotion order of the petitioner, one Akbar Shah, filed a departmental appeal and the same was accepted and the petitioner was declared to be promoted after Akbar Shah. During this litigation many junior Forest Guards to petitioner were promoted as Foresters. The petitioner applied for his promotion and adjustment as many junior persons to him were promoted.
The petitioner was promoted and adjusted; consequently the junior most promotee, Syed Sarwar Hussain Shah, respondent No,1 herein, was reverted vide orders dated 21-5-1997 and 22-12-1999.
Respondent No,1, Syed Sarwar Hussain Shah, filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal against the order dated 22-12-1999. After the completion of trial, the Service Tribunal was pleased to accept the appeal filed by respondent No,1 vide its judgment dated 19-11-2001 against which the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the apex Court on 27-11-2001. This Court accepted the appeal of the petitioner and by setting aside the judgment of the Service Tribunal remanded the case to the Service Tribunal for fresh decision according to service rules and admittedly seniority lists.
3. After the remand of case, the Service Tribunal accepted the appeal of respondent No,1 vide its impugned judgment dated 4-10-2003. It is the aforesaid judgment of the Service Tribunal which is the subject-matter of present petition for leave to appeal.
4. In support of petition for leave to appeal it was vehemently contended by Kh. Muhammad Naseem, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner's basic date of appointment was 15-4-1974 as Kuth Guard and subsequently he was adjusted as Forest Guard on 16-3-1977. The post of Kuth Guard and Forest Guard is of the same scale, therefore, the seniority of Forest Guards, Depot Guards and of Kuth Guards is determined jointly in accordance with their first appointments on respective posts. The seniority list prepared in the year 1989 shows the petitioner at Serial No,45 and his first appointment therein is entered as 15-4-1974 while respondent No,1 is entered at Serial No,54. The respondent or any other person never challenged the validity of this seniority list determined by the department. Thereafter in another seniority list of 1996-97, the petitioner is entered at Serial No,1 while respondent No,1 is entered at Serial No,11. Neither respondent No,1 nor anybody else has objected to this seniority list. Even before going to Service Tribuna1, respondent No,1 never called in question the validity of the above noted seniority lists prepared and published by the department. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first order of promotion of petitioner as Forester has not been challenged by respondent No,1, therefore, he was legally estopped to call in question the promotion of petitioner while ignoring the promotion of incumbents entered at Serial Nos.2 to 10. Thus respondent No,1 has admitted the correctness of this seniority list. The seniority list of Foresters published and prepared in 1998 also shows the date of first appointment of petitioner as 15-41974. This entry as a whole has never been challenged by respondent No,
1. The learned counsel also contended that the Forest Department in its written statement before the departmental authority as well as before the Service Tribunal admitted the first appointment of petitioner as 15-4-1974, now they cannot take a different and inconsistent stand. The learned counsel contended that the Service Tribunal has relied on that record which was not part and parcel of the file of Service Tribunal and which was not tendered in evidence and no opportunity of cross-examination was given to the petitioner.
5. Controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Abdul Rashid Abbasi, the learned counsel for respondent No,1, contended that the petition for leave to appeal does not give rise to any question of law of public importance as visualized by section 47 of the AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974. The petition, therefore, merits dismissal without going into merits thereof. The learned counsel argued that respondent No,1 is senior to the petitioner in his capacity as Forest Guard according to the seniority list of the concerned Division, wherein the answering respondent is placed at Serial No,9 as compared to the petitioner who is placed at Serial 'No,19 of the list. The copy of this seniority list has been attached as Annexure 'RA'. Respondent No,1 was inducted into service of the Forest Department as Forest Guard on 19-3-1975 as against the petitioner who was inducted into such service on 1-3-1977. Respondent No,1 has qualified the departmental training whereas the petitioner is still untrained and not eligible for promotion as Forester. The seniority of respondent No,1 vis-a-vis the petitioner was finally determined by the competent authority on 8- 10-1978, where respondent No,1 was ordered to be placed at Serial No,39 and petitioner was ordered to be placed at Serial No,49 of the same list. The order dated 8-10-1978 having never been