MALIK MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus FEDERAL DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION ISLAMABAD
The petitioner, a Trained Graduate Teacher, challenged his seniority status in successive seniority lists, alleging that several colleagues appointed on an ad hoc basis had their services regularized illegally. The Service Tribunal dismissed his appeal on multiple grounds, including that the petitioner's own ad hoc appointment was regularized after the respondents, some respondents graduated before him, and the appeal suffered from multifariousness. On petition for leave to appeal, the petitioner contended that he had previously raised a similar grievance against respondents Nos. 38 to 43, which had been remanded by the Supreme Court for a fresh decision, and that the 1995 seniority list was connected to that dispute. The Supreme Court observed that the Service Tribunal failed to consider this specific aspect of the case. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal exclusively against respondents Nos. 38 to 43 to determine the impact of the prior remand and the validity of the 1995 seniority list.
- Can a civil servant challenge the seniority of colleagues whose services were regularized prior to the regularization of the civil servant's own ad hoc service?
- Whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal is maintainable if it combines multiple distinct causes of action accruing at different times?
- Should leave to appeal be granted where the Service Tribunal fails to consider that a previous dispute involving the same parties and seniority issues had been remanded by the Supreme Court for fresh decision?
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.