ABDUL RAHIM ARSHAD Versus DIRECTOR, TECHNICAL EDUCATION, PUNJAB LAHORE

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑‑ Ch. Abdul Rahim Arshad, Junior Instructor, Sweedish Pakistan Institute of Technology, Gujrat, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, IX of 1974 against order, dated 10th February, 1981 of respondent No. 1 and order dated 18th July, 1981 of respondent No. 2 and order dated 8th August, 1978.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that these orders be declared as illegal and void and appellant be declared senior to respondent No. 3.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claims seniority by virtue of his appointment as Junior Instructor on 1st July, 1967 against the respondent who according to him was appointed as such on 10th July, 1967. He has challenged the impugned seniority list for which he had made representations before the Department which did not meet with success and the appellant went on filing few other representations on this subject. He has also challenged the promotion order, dated 8 th August, 1978 of the respondent Arif Ali Syed who was promoted as Instructor. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. The only issue for determination before us would be whether the respondent No. 3, Arif Ali Syed, was selected earlier than the appellant or not and its effects.

6. After great efforts we were able to lay our hands on the relevant record to adjudicate the issue so before us. The record of this case reveals that Arif Ali Syed, respondent No. 3 was selected as Junior Instructor on 19th May, 1967 whereas the appellant was selected for the same post on 25th May, 1967. It is also on the record that the appellant was able to take charge before respondent No. 3. To settle the issue as to who will rank senior, whether the person selected earlier or the person who has taken over the assignment earlier than his contestant, we refer to rule 8 (1) (a) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 and rule 9 of the West Pakistan Education Depart ment (Technical Wing) Subordinate Posts Recruitment Rules, 1965. According to these rules the person selected in the earlier selection would rank senior to the person rejected in the later selection irrespective of the fact as to who held the charge and when.

7. In view of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that Arif Ali Syed respondent No. 3 would be senior than the appellant according to the above‑mentioned rules.

8. With regard to the claim of the appellant to set aside the promo tion order of Arif Ali Syed, respondent No. 3, dated 8th August, 1978, we are afraid we cannot enter into this matter as the same is beyond our jurisdiction.

9. The result is that we dismiss the appeal as being without any force.

However, the parties will bear their own costs.

M. I Appeal dismissed.