AHMAD NAWAZ KHAN Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPTT

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). - Ahmad Nawaz Khan has filed appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Education Department. Lahore, and M/s. Bashir Ahmad Akhtar Sahi and sixty eight others, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned seniority list Annexure `B' be declared illegal and set aside to the extent it places the appellant at 178 junior to respondents Nos. 2 to 66, and respondent No. 1 be directed to amend the impugned seniority list and appellant be placed below serial No. 100 and above serial No. 101 in the said seniority list.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney alongwith Ch. Hamid-ud-Din, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 to 43, and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

4. Without going into the merits of the case, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 to 43 has submitted that the appeal merits dismissal in view of the Tribunal own decision taken in Appeal No. 500 of 1983, titled Ch. Naair Ahmad v. Secretary of Government of the Punjab, Education Department, decided on 1st June, 1983, as well as appeal No. 247 of 1981, titled Mrs. S. J. Usmani v. Secretary to Government of the 'Punjab, Education, Department decided on 4th March, 1982.

5. On the other hand learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Riaz Anwar Asadi has submitted that being conscious of the fact that the appeal was hopelessly time-barred, he has filed an application for condonation of delay on the ground that the appellant committed this delay due to wrong advice of his counsel. He has candidly admitted before this Tribunal that it was he, who told the appellant not to file appeal before the Tribunal but to submit a review/representation against the said final seniority. In this manner, he has submitted that the delay so caused on-the part of the appellant be condoned.

6. We have carefully attended to the arguments so advanced by the parties and have perused our judgments so delivered by us in case of Ch. Nazir Ahmad v. 26 others in which Ch. Hamid-ud-Din, Advocate, was the counsel for the appellant while Mr. Riaz Anwar Asadi, Advocate, was the counsel for the respondents alongwith Mr. Masud Ahmad Riaz, Advocate. This point of limitation was raised at that time by Mr. Riaz Anwar Asadi, Advocate, himself on the ground that the appeal was barred by one year and ten months, as the seniority list was issued in the name of the Governor, therefore, under section 21 of the Punjab Civil Ser vants Act, 1974 no representation would lie against the order of the Governor. Mr. Riaz Anwar Asadi, had pleaded that the exercise so taken by the appellants would be an exercise in futility and, therefore, they were not entitled to any allowance in the matter of condonation of delay. We accepted the arguments so advanced by the learned counsel who is now for the appellant in this case, and relying on our earlier judgment in case of Mrs. S. J. Usmani v. Secretary Education Punjab, dismissed the appeal as time barred. In the present case, we cannot use a different yardstick in the case of the respondents and are bound to follow our judgments so delivered in two different cases as mentioned above.

7. The result is we dismiss the appeal as time barred on the ground that as the order was passed by the Governor of the Punjab, therefore, no representation was permitted against such order. The appellant was fully aware of his right and in no manner could seek a remedy which was not available to him under the law. There will be no order as to costs.

M. I.

Appeal dismissed.