NAZEER AHMAD Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQ ZAHID

ORDER

1. ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J. --This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 14th April, 1986, passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court.

2. The brief facts are that the petitioners and the respondents are all Private Secretaries and the petitioners claim that they are senior to the respondents. In January, 1975, 26 posts of Judgment Writers were upgraded to National Pay Scale 16 with the rider that higher qualifications should be prescribed for persons to be appointed against them. Since the existing service rules applicable to the establishment of the High Court were silent with regard to filling of appointments in National Pay Scale 16, a Full Court meeting was convened on 3rd April, 1975, and by a resolution the Full Court of the Lahore High Court prescribed the educational as well as other qualifications for the upgraded posts. It also set down the marking standards for determining the merits of persons who were to be initially appointed to fill them. To give effect to the resolution of Full Court, the learned Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court appointed a Committee of three most senior Judges to make recommendations after interviewing and examining the records of the candidates for the posts. The Committee interviewed 49 Judgment Writers and in accordance with the criteria prescribed by the Full Court recommended 26 of them for appointment. It also determined their order of merit.

3. Though the petitioners were senior to the respondents as Judgment-Writers but in the order of merit they were placed below the respondents. This recommendation was accepted by the Chief Justice vide his order, dated 20th June, 1975, and appointments made accordingly. Consequent upon the order of the Chief Justice, a notification was issued and the names of the persons appointed were shown in the same order as had been indicated by the Committee. It was after about eight years that the petitioners agitated the matter of their seniority before the learned Chief Justice who dismissed the same on the ground of laches vide his order dated 22nd November, 1983. The matter was then taken up in appeal before the High Court which was also dismissed through the impugned judgment.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners heard and the impugned judgment perused. Since the sub-rule in the matter of selection was silent, therefore, the Committee and the learned Chief Justice were free to determine the seniority of the persons so selected. Further the matter of selection was based on well-recognized procedure of interview and examination of the personal record, therefore, the grievance of the candidates was rightly turned down.

5. The petition has no force and is, therefore, dismissed.

6. M.I./N-51/S Leave refused.