FAZAL MUHAMMAD vs GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. And others
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a service dispute regarding the determination of inter se seniority between the petitioner and respondent No. 3, both appointed as Auditors (BPS-11) in the Local Fund Audit Department, N.-W.F.P. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who assumed office earlier due to a delay in the respondent's age relaxation sanction, was entitled to seniority over the respondent who was higher in merit and older in age. The Supreme Court held that since both were selected in the same batch, the respondent's higher merit and older age properly placed him higher in seniority, and the earlier assumption of duty by the petitioner did not override these factors. The Court affirmed the judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's appeal and ruled that no question of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution was involved. The key principle laid down is that inter se seniority of civil servants selected in the same batch is determined by merit and age, and earlier joining time caused by administrative delays for age relaxation does not confer a seniority right.
- Does a civil servant who assumes duty earlier gain seniority over a co-selectee from the same batch who joined later due to pending age relaxation?
- How is inter se seniority determined for civil servants selected in the same batch under the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a service tribunal's decision on seniority when no question of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution is involved?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
- Rule 17(b), N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitioner and the respondent No,3 (Azmatullah) were selected by the Selection Committee and were appointed as Auditor (BPS-11) in Local Fund Audit Department, N.-W.F.P. However, respondent No,3 could not assume the charge of the post as sanction of relaxation in age limit was awaited. Therefore, he joined his duties ten days later than the petitioner. Initially the petitioner was shown senior to the respondent No,3 in the seniority lists.
However, the seniority dispute was resolved by the departmental authorities in favour of the respondent No,3 who was found senior to the petitioner both in order of merit and age. In the final seniority list as it stood on 31-12-1995, the respondent No,3 was shown at serial No,33 and the petitioner next below him. The petitioner, therefore, filed Appeal No,224 of 1996 which was dismissed by the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal. The case was earlier remanded by this Court. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment, dated 28-2-2007, dismissed the service appeal of the petitioner. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. The learned counsel vehemently argued that the petitioner and respondent No,3 were selected from Zones 1 and 2 respectively. Moreover, the petitioner had joined his duties in the department earlier than the respondent No,3. Therefore, in terms of sub-rule (b) of rule 17 of the N.-W.F.P. Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, the seniority of both parties was required to be determined with reference to the date of regular appointment to the post and the respondent No,3 could not be declared to be senior to the petitioner by any stretch of imagination.
3. We have heard the learned counsel at length and have also perused the available record. We find that the petitioner as well as the respondent No,3 were selected and appointed in the same batch. Admittedly, the respondent No,3 is older in age than the petitioner. The mere fact that the petitioner assumed the duties earlier would not adversely affect the seniority position of the respondentNo,3. In our view, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is plainly correct to which no exception can be taken. Moreover, no question of public importance is involved as contemplated in Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan so as to warrant interference by this Court.
4. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.