MALIK MUHAMMD ASLAM Versus FEDERAL DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Malik Muhammad Aslam against the Federal Directorate of Education, challenging the judgment of the Service Tribunal. The petitioner, a Trained Graduate Teacher, contested various seniority lists that placed him junior to his colleagues, alleging illegal regularisation of ad hoc appointees. The Service Tribunal dismissed his appeal, holding that his own appointment was regularised on 7-7-1977, that other respondents graduated earlier and were senior, and that the appeal suffered from multifariousness. Upon reaching the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the Tribunal failed to consider that a previous similar grievance concerning respondents Nos. 38 to 43 had been remanded by the Supreme Court for a fresh decision, and the 1995 seniority list was issued in that same connection. The Supreme Court held that since the Tribunal omitted this crucial aspect, leave to appeal should be granted specifically against respondents Nos. 38 to 43. The key principle laid down is that a service tribunal must consider the complete litigation history and remand directives when adjudicating service matters.
- Whether an ad hoc appointee whose services are subsequently regularised can claim seniority over colleagues similarly regularised.
- Does combining multiple causes of action arising from different seniority lists render a service appeal liable to dismissal for multifariousness?
- Whether the Service Tribunal is bound to consider previous remand orders of the Supreme Court when deciding a service appeal.
ORDER
MAMOON KAZI, J.--- The petitioner claims to be Trained Graduate Teacher. He was aggrieved on account of different seniority lists issued from time to time which showed him as junior to his other colleagues. His grievance was that some of his colleagues had been appointed on ad hoc basis but their services were regularised illegally. The petitioner filed his appeal before the Service Tribunal after he had felt aggrieved by a seniority list issued in 1995. The petitioner first filed a departmental appeal and when he failed to succeed, he approached the learned Tribunal.
2. The learned Tribunal, however, dismissed the petitioner's appeal, holding that his own appointment was on ad hoc basis, which was regularised only with effect from 7-7-1977. Consequently, he could not have any grievance in regard to regularisation of the respondents, who had been similarly regularised as the petitioner prior to him. Secondly, the Tribunal was of the view that some of the other respondents, who were also Graduate Teachers, had graduated prior to the petitioner and were senior to him in service. Therefore, the petitioner could not be allowed to claim seniority over such persons. Thirdly, the petition was found to suffer from multifariousness, as different causes of action, which accrued to the petitioner from time to time had been combined in one appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
3. Although, no cavil can be found with the said findings arrived. at by the Tribunal, but the petitioner's case is that he had earlier raised a similar grievance before the Tribunal by impleading respondents Nos.38 to 43. The case, on ultimately reaching this Court, was remanded for a fresh decision. The seniority list issued by the Department in 1995 was in the same connection.
4. Since the learned Tribunal has not adverted to this aspect of the case while dismissing the petitioner's appeal, leave is granted to the petitioner but only against respondents Nos.38 to 43.
A.A./M-82/S Leave granted.