2023 PLC(CS)N 67

SHAHID ALI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Chancellor Karakorum International University Gilgit Baltistan, Gilgit

Citation2023 PLC(CS)N 67

CourtGilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

Judge(s)Wazir Shakeel Ahmed, CJ and Ali Baig

ALI BAIG, J.---- This writ petition has been filed under Article 71(2) of Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self Governance) order, 2009 read with enabling articles of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 by the petitioners seeking the following prayer/remedies:-

(I) The impugned seniority list No.KIU-Adm 1(26)/2016/33460 dated 01-8-2017 and corrigendum No.KIU-Adm-1(26)/ 2016/33756 dated 20-9-2017 may kindly be declared null and void and without law full authority.

(II) The respondents may graciously be directed to prepare fresh seniority list in accordance with law and facts.

(III) Any other remedy, which this Hon'ble court deems proper may also be granted.

2. Briefly stated facts forming background of the instant writ petition are that the present petitioners who are employees of KIU were appointed as LDCs in KIU vide various appointment orders. After appointment of the petitioners, the respondents prepared seniority list of LDCs of KIU on 18-2-201o, which was circulated among the petitioners and respondents Nos.7 to 12. The respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have again prepared the impugned seniority list on 01-8-2017 declaring the respondents Nos. 6 to 12 senior to the present petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by the subsequent seniority list, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

3. A copy of this writ petition was supplied to the respondents with the direction to furnish para wise comments, which have been filed, by the respondents on 26-2-2019.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that after appointment of the petitioners and respondents No.6 to 12 a seniority list was prepared and circulated by the respondents, which has attained finality. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that on 1st August 2017, the respondents NO.1 to 3 have again prepared another seniority list with malafide intention to accommodate the respondents No.6 to 12 declaring them senior to the petitioners which is illegal and against the vested rights of the petitioners, therefore, the said seniority list is liable to be cancelled.

5. On the other hand the Legal Advisor KIU controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners by contending that the pervious seniority list was prepared on 18-2-2010 in contravention of Civil Servant (Seniority) Rules 1993 considering the age factor of the petitioners and respondents Nos. 6 to 12 ignoring merit list of the appointees /petitioners, therefore, other employees had reservations regarding previous seniority list, therefore, fresh seniority list was prepared in accordance with the Civil Servant (Seniority) Rules, 1993 on merits, hence the instant writ petition of the petitioners is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

7. Admittedly, the petitioners were initially appointed vide various office orders on contract basis through open advertisement in the year,2oo2 by selection committee on merits as evident from final merit list of recommended candidates ( annexure-F).

8. Under Section 2(2) of the Civil Servants ( seniority) Rules 1993, if two or more persons are recommended in open advertisement by the selection authority their interse seniority shall be determined in order to merit assigned by the selection authority.

9. Bare reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Civil Servants (seniority) Rules, 1993 it appears that the respondents Nos.1 to 3 have prepared seniority list in accordance with aforesaid rules and they have not committed any irregularity and illegality while preparing the impugned seniority list of the petitioners and respondents Nos. 6 to 12 as pervious seniority list was prepared and circulated in utter contravention of the relevant provisions of the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993. Thus, no any fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed by the respondents Nos.1 to 3, hence this writ petition has no substance.

10. For the foregoing reasons this writ petition being berefit of merits is hereby dismissed. File.

SA/185/GB Petition dismissed.