FAYYAS AKHTAR Versus HAFEEZUR RAHROAN

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.- -This is an appeal by special leave from the order dated 2-11-1986 of the Federal Service Tribunal. It arises in the following circumstances.

2. The appellant joined service on 10-12-1976 as Assistant Foreman in Ore Defence Science and Technology Organization. The post of Assistant Foreman was in grade 14. Respondent No.1 joined service on 8-1-1973 in the same Organization as a Workshop Supervisor (upper grade). This post was in grade 13 at that time. Later, with effect from 17-11-1979, it was upgraded and placed in grade 14.

3. Sometimes in 1984 the post of Assistant Technical Officer in grade 16 fell vacant. Both the appellant and respondent No.1 were -eligible for promotion against this post. By an order dated 27-11-1984, the Department declared the appellant senior to respondent No.1 accordingly, it promoted and appointed the appellant to the said post. Respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal to challenge the order of the Department. The learned Tribunal accepted the appeal, declared respondent No.1 as senior to the appellant and directed that he should be considered for promotion in preference to the appellant.

4. There are no rules in force determining the inter se seniority of Workshop Supervisors and Assistant Foreman even though the incumbents of both posts are eligible for promotion as Assistant Technical Officer. Admittedly, the appellant was already holding a post in grade 14 when the post held by respondent No.1 was raised to that grade. We therefore do not see how respondent No.1 could be regarded as senior to the appellant. Apparently in arriving at the conclusion that respondent No.1 was senior to the appellant, the learned Tribunal was drawing support from Section 8(4) of the Civil Servant Act but then the provisions of this subsection in terms regulate seniority of civil servant in the next grade after promotion they are of no assistance in determining pre-promotion seniority of officers holding different posts. We are therefore unable to support the view taken by the learned Tribunal that respondent No.1 was senior to the appellant and for that reason he ought to have been considered for promotion in preference to the appellant. We would accordingly accept this appeal, set aside the order of the learned Tribunal and dismiss the appeal preferred by respondent No.1 before the Tribunal with no order as to costs.

S.Q. /F-24/S Appeal accepted.