MUHAMMAD RAFIQ KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P.
ORDER
ABEEDULLAH JAN (MEMBER).‑ This order is intended to dispose of Appeal No. 43 of 1979 preferred by Muhammad Rafiq Khan, appellant, against Seniority List published by the Secretary to Government of N.‑W.F.P., Education Department, on 17th April, 1979. It has been alleged in the appeal that respondent No. 1 has shown the appellant at S. No. 35 of the impugned seniority list and has thus been made junior to respondents Nos. 3 to 27. The appellant has, therefore, challanged the impugned Seniority List and has prayed that the same may be set aside and instructions may be issued to respondent No. 1 to place him at serial No. 10 of the said seniority list.
2. The brief facts of this case are that Government of N.‑W.F.P., in Education Department, decided to amalgamate various cadres and for this purpose a Notification was issued on 16‑12‑1978 proclaiming that the Governor of N.‑W.F.P., is pleased to order that the cadres (both Men and Women Sections) of Comprehensive Schools and other Schools, shall be amalgamated with immediate effect and consequent upon the said amalgamation, a joint seniority list shall be prepared with reference to the date of continuous appointment, substantive or otherwise, to a particular or comparable grade, provided that where two officers are bracketted together, owing to their appointments taking effect from the same date, the older officer shall be given seniority over the younger and provided further, that the inter‑se‑seniority of the members of the service belonging to the same cadre, as held before the merger, shall not be altered in the joint seniority list.
3. Based on the above proclamation, the Government of N.‑W.F.P., in Education Department, issued a seniority list on 17‑4‑1979 wherein the appellant was shown at serial No. 35. The appellant felt aggrieved, and, therefore, preferred a departmental appeal against the final integrated seniority list of the officers of the school administration Branch (Men's Section) and Comprehensive High School, of the Education Department in NPS‑18 corrected up for 20‑12‑1978 and issued under Education Department's Notification No. SO (S) H‑8/78, dated 17.4‑1979.
4. The appellant was informed vide S.O. Schools' letter No. SO (S) H‑8/78 dated 15‑7‑79, together with those who had preferred similar departmental appeals, that their appeals against the final seniority list were considered and filed as the list had been issued in consultation with, the Law Department, and Services and General Administration Department, Government of N.‑W.F.P., after taking into consideration, all aspects of the case. The appellant feeling still not satisfied, preferred the present appeal in this Tribunal, claiming relief on the ground that he was given selection grade on 1‑6‑1970 and placed in NPS‑18 on 1‑3‑1972 and continued in this grade till the date of issue of the list whereas the respondents Nos. 3 to 24 at Sl. Nos. 10 to 31 of the impugned seniority list were granted selection grade, equated to NPS‑18, after the award of selection grade to the appellant. The respondents have been granted seniority on the basis of Selection Grade/NPS‑18 but this principle has not been followed in the case of the appellant, and consequently the appellant has been placed at serial No. 35 instead of his rightful place at serial No. 10.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. We find that the integrated seniority list was prepared keeping the following principles in view :‑
(i) Seniority shall take effect from the date of continuous appoint ment, substantive or otherwise, in a particular or comparable grade.
(ii) In case of Officers bracktted together, owing to their appointments taking effect from the same date, the older shall be shown senior to the younger officer.
(iii) Inter‑se‑seniority of the members of the service belonging to the same cadre as held before the merger, shall not be altered in the joint seniority list.
6. In order to examine the seniority of the appellant vis‑a‑vis the respondents Nos. 3 to 27 on the touch‑stone of the principles afore mentioned, we draw reference to date of continuous appointment and seniority position of the members in their own cadres prior to integration. For this purpose seniority lists of the officers belonging to different cadres are reproduced below :‑
CADRE NO. 1‑ SENIORITY LIST OF OFFICERS OF SCHOOLS CADRE (ADMINISTRATION BRANCH) (MEN SECTION) DRAWING PAY IN NPS‑18 IN LIEU OF THE FORMER SELECTION GRADE AGAINST THE CADRE STRENGTH OF GRADE‑17 POSTS AS IT STOOD ON 1‑8‑1978.
S. No. I Date of Con‑ Date of
Firmation in Award of
Name Class‑II/NPS‑ Selection
17. Grade.
6. Mr. Muhammad Shah 24‑8‑1959 1‑7‑1970
Shaukat.
7. Mr. Sadullah Khan. 24‑8‑1959 1‑7‑1970
8. Mr. Muhammad Ishaq 24‑8‑1959 25‑8‑1970
9. Mr. Muhammad Hassan 24‑8‑1959 1‑1‑1971
Jan.
10. Mr. Muhammad Aslam 24‑8‑1959 1‑1‑1971
Kasuria.
11. Mr. Rafiq Hussain 24‑8‑1959 1‑1‑1971
12. Mr. Ghulam Hassan 24‑8‑1959 1‑1‑1971
Balooch
13. Mr. Jauhar Hassan 24‑8‑1959 1‑1‑1971
14. Mr. Nowsher Khan. 24‑8‑1959 1‑1‑1971
15. Mr. Habibur Reh‑ 24‑8‑1959 4‑3‑1971 man.
16. Mr. Mufti Aziz 1‑4‑1960 31‑3‑1971
Ahmed.
17. Mr. Rangeen Shah. 1‑4‑1960 6‑4‑1971
18. Mr. Said Hussain. 1‑11‑1962 8‑5‑1971
19. Mr. Abdur Raziq 1‑11‑1962 31‑10‑1971
20. Mr. Abdur Rauf. 1‑11‑1962 1‑11‑1971
21. Mr. Hamidullah 16‑10‑1966 1‑11‑1971
Khan.
22. Mr. Abdur Raziq. 1‑7‑1963
23. Mr. Fazli Rehman. 1‑7‑1964 1‑11‑1971
24. Mr. Abdur Rehman. 1‑7‑1964 1‑I1‑1971
25. Mr. Abdur Qaddus 1‑7‑1964 1‑11‑1971
26. Mr. Muhammad 1‑7‑1964 1‑11‑1971
Aslam.
27. Mr. Ghulam Qadir. 13‑10‑1964 1‑11‑1971
CADRE NO. 2. SENIORITY LIST OF THE OFFICERS HOLDING
POSTS OF PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT COM
PREHENSIVE HIGH SCHOOL IN N.‑W.F.P. IN NATIO
NAL PAY SCALE NO. 18 AS STOOD ON 1‑8‑78.
S. N. Name Date of Date of Con
Promotion firmation
To Class‑I Grade.
Service.
1. Mr. Kifayatullah. 3‑4‑1969 1‑6‑1975
2. Mr. Dilasa Khan. 3‑4‑1969 1‑6‑1975
3. Mr. Muhammad Idress 26‑12‑1973 1‑6‑1975
Khan.
4. Mr. Maqbool‑ur‑Rchmap. 9‑2‑1975
5. Mr. Muhammad Rafiq. 18‑7‑1975
OFFICERS DRAWING PAY IN NPS‑18 IN LIEU OF THE FORMER SELECTION GRADE IN THE CADRE STRENGTH OF GRADE‑17 POSTS.
1. Mr. Ayub Khan 1‑4‑1971
7. The two cadres were integrated and a combined seniority list was issued with effect from 17‑4‑1979 in which the seniority position of the Grade 18 officers of the Education Department corrected upto 20‑12‑1978 was shown as under :‑
S. No. Name Position Date of Date of
In Integ‑ Promotion Equation rated Se‑ To Selec‑ Of Selec nority tion Gra‑ tion Grade
List de. To NPS‑18.
1 2 3 4 5
1. Mr. Mahmood Shah 10 1‑7‑1970 1‑3‑1972
Shaukat.
2 Mr. Sadullah Khan 1 l 1‑7‑1970 1‑3‑1972
3 Mr. Muhammad Ishaq 12 25‑8‑1970 1‑3‑1972
4 Mr. Muhammad Hassan Jan 13 1‑1‑1971 1‑3‑1972
5. Mr. Muhammad Aslam 14 1‑1‑1971 1‑3‑1972
6. Mr. Rafiq Hussain. 15 1‑1‑1971 1‑3‑1972
7. Mr. Ghulam Hussain 16 1‑1‑1971 1‑3‑1972
Balooch.
8. Mr. Jauhar Hassan. 17 1‑1‑1971 1‑3‑1972
9. Mr. Nowsher Khan. 18 1‑1‑1971 1‑3‑1972
10. Mr. Habibur Rehman. 19 4‑3‑1971 1‑3‑1972
11. Mr. Mufti Aziz Ahmed. 20 31‑3‑1971 1‑3‑1972
12. Mr. Rangeen Shah. 21 6‑4‑1971 1‑3‑1972
13. Mr. Said Hassan 22 8‑5‑1971 1‑3‑1972
14. Mr. Abdul Raziq. 23 31‑10‑1971 1‑3‑1972
15. Mr. Abdur Rauf. 24 1‑11‑1971 1‑3‑1972
16. Mr. Hamidullah Khan. 25 1‑11‑1971 1‑3‑1972
17. Mr. Abdur Raziq. 26 1‑11‑1971 1‑3‑1972
18. Mr. Fazli Rehman. 27 1‑11‑1971 1‑3‑1972
19. Mr. Abdur Rehman. 28 1‑11‑1971 1‑3‑1972
20. Mr. Abdul Qadus. 29 1‑11‑1971 1‑3‑1972
21. Mr. Muhammad Aslam. 30 1‑1‑1‑1971 1‑3‑1972
22. Mr. Ghulam Qadir. 31 1‑11‑1971 1‑3‑1972
23. Mr. Gauhar Rehman 32 4‑7‑1972
Abbasi.
24. Mr. Muhammad Idris 33 26‑12‑1973
Khan.
25. Mr. Maqbool‑ur‑ 34 6‑2‑1975
Rehman.
26. Mr. Muhammad Rafiq 35 1‑6‑1970 1‑3‑1972
Khan.
18‑7‑75
27. Mr. Muhammad Ayub. 36 1‑4‑1971 1‑3‑1972
8. In the light of the above information, the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties were heard. The counsel for the appellant stated that respondents Nos. 3 to 24 got selection grade between 1‑7‑1970 to 1‑11‑1971 whereas the appellant got selection grade on 1‑6‑1970. It was further mentioned that the selection grade of the appellant was equated to NPS‑18 with effect from 1‑3‑1972 whereas the respondents Nos. 25,26 and 27 were granted NPS‑18 much after 1‑3‑1972. Therefore, on the basis of continuous appointment in selection grade and NPS‑18 with effect from 1‑6‑1970, the appellant is senior to respondents Nos. 3 to 27. The counsel for the appellant quoted different authorities including rule 8, of the N.‑W.F.P. Civil Servants Act, 1973, in support of his contention. The counsel also mentioned that the integration order also lays down that joint seniority list shall be prepared with reference to the date of continuous appointment, substantive or otherwise, to a particular or comparable grade. The counsel alleged that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have deviated from the uniform policy of reckoning seniority of the appellant vis‑a‑vis respondents Nos. 3 to 27 from the date of selection grade and continuous appointment in that grade.
9. The Government Pleader, on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, stated that the appellant and respondents Nos. 26 and 27 shown at serial Nos. 33 and 34 of the integrated seniority list belong to the same cadre. These respondents were senior to the appellant in the cadre seniority list maintained prior to integration. This position could not be changed in view of the provision contained in the integration order It was further maintained by the Government Pleader that the appellant was drawing pay in N.P.S‑18 on the strength of former selection grade but he could not claim seniority over Messrs Muhammad Idrees and Maqboolur- Rehman appearing at serial Nos. 33 and 34 of the combined seniority list because they were holders of the Grade‑18 posts of Principal Government Comprehensive High Schools while the appellant was not in that position and,' therefore, on the merger, he was correctly placed junior to respondents Nos. 26 and 27 in the joint seniority list. Since these respondents are junior to respondent Nos. 3 to 24, therefore, they were also ranked senior to the appellant in accordance with the principles contained in the integration order.
10. The counsel for respondents Nos. 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17 and 19 to 27 stated that before merger of the comprehensive school cadre with general school cadre with effect from 16‑12‑78, separate seniority lists of officers of both the cadres were maintained by the Education Department and the appellant was junior to respondents Nos. 26 and 27 in the Seniority List of Grade‑18 Officers of the comprehensive school cadre. According to the Notification of merger, the inter‑se‑seniority of the members of the service belonging to the same cadre, as they held before the merger, were not to be altered in the joint seniority list. Accordingly the appellant who ranked junior to respondents Nos. 26 and 27 and these respondents were junior to respondents Nos. 3 to 24 on the basis of continuous appointment in Grade‑18, the appellant was assigned correct position in the integrated seniority list issued on 17‑4‑1979.
11. The counsel for the appellant, while counteracting the arguments of the counsel for respondents stated that Integration Order under reference, had contemplated, the amalgamation of the cadres and prepara tion of joint seniority list with reference to the date of continuous appointment to a particular or comparable grade, which meant that Grade‑18 was comparable to Grade‑18. Similarly Selection Grade was comparable to Selection Grade. In the instant case, the appellant had been granted selection Grade with effect from 1‑6‑1970 which is a material date for the purpose of determination of seniority. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to be placed at serial Nos. 10 of the impugned seniority list. The counsel maintained that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have mis interpreted the Integration Order and wrongly fixed the seniority of the appellant vis‑a‑vis respondents.
12. We have given our anxious consideration to the points raised by the counsel for the parties and we have come to the understanding that (i) the appellant got selection grade on 1‑6‑1970 whereas respondents No. 3 to 27 got selection grade on different date after 1‑7‑1970. (ii) The parties have not disputed the spirit and contents of the Integration Order but they disagree over its meaning and interpretation. (iii) The appellant and respondents Nos. 26 and 27 were in the same cadre of Comprehensive High School but these respondents were senior to the appellant in the cadre maintained prior to integration. Considering these issues as undisputed /settled, we now proceed to examine merit in the arguments of the counsel for the parties.
13. The appellant belongs to the cadre of comprehensive Schools. The respondents Nos. 26 and 27 also belong to this cadre. These respondents were holding the posts of the Principal in Grade‑18. The appellant was posted as subject specialist. The appellant was in N.P.S‑17 but he was given selection grade on the basis of Government decision to grant selection grade to 15 % posts in Grade‑17. No doubt the appellant was enjoying the pay and status of Selection Grade from 1‑6‑1970 to 29‑2‑1972 and Grade‑18 thereafter but he was always shown and considered junior to respondents Nos. 26 and 27 and this position continued still the cadres were amalgamated. If the appellant was admittedly junior to respondents Nos. 26 and 27 before integration, how he could claim seniority over these respondents after integration. The respondents Nos. 3 to 24 were senior to respondents Nos. 25. 26 and 27 on the basis of continuous appointment in Selection Grade/Grade‑18, they had also to be shown senior to appellant on the basis of the simple principle of Geometry that if `A' is senior to `B' and `B' is senior to `C' then `A' is also senior to `C'.
14. The facts mentioned in the pre‑para. have led us to the considera tion of yet another facet, of the present appeal. The cadre seniority list of the Selection Grade/N.P.S‑18 officers of Comprehensive High Schools was issued on 31‑8‑1978. The appellant was shown and considered junior to respondents Nos. 26 and 27. If the appellant wanted to claim seniority on the basis of his continuous appointment in Selection Grade with effect from 1‑6‑1970, he should have challenged the cadre seniority list and if the said list had been corrected prior to integration of the two cadres, the appellant would have got rightful place in the Integrated Seniority List. The appellant instead of challenging the cadres seniority list, has called in question the Integrated Seniority List, Since the Integrated Seniority List was prepared on the basis of cadre seniority list keeping in. s view the three guiding principles spelled out in Integration Order, we fine that no deviation has been made from the set principles and, therefore, no relief can be granted to the appellant on the basis of the present appeal. If the appellant intends to challenge the cadre seniority list, he should prefer a separate appeal after exhausting departmental avenues in compliance with the provision contained in section 4 of N.‑W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974.
15. For the detailed reasons given above, the present appeal is dismissed with no orders to the cost.
Appeal dismissed.