Syed KABIR HUSSAIN SHAH vs DIRECTORGENERAL, T & T, ISLAMABAD and 3
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had rejected the petitioner's appeal concerning the seniority of respondents Nos. 3 and 4. The petitioner, a Stenographer, contested the seniority of the respondents, arguing that their initial appointments as Stenographers were irregular because they were only Matriculates, whereas the minimum qualification for direct recruitment was Intermediate. The petitioner contended that their appointments should be treated as ad hoc and thus excluded from seniority calculations. The core legal question was whether the respondents' appointments were regular and whether they were eligible for the post of Stenographer despite their educational qualifications. The Supreme Court held that the respondents were eligible for appointment as temporary Stenographers because they had rendered the requisite length of service as Stenotypists, as permitted by the Estacode. Consequently, the Court found their appointments to be regular and in accordance with the prescribed manner. The petition was dismissed, affirming that the petitioner was correctly placed junior to the respondents, who had been appointed to the post earlier.
- Are Matriculate Stenotypists with three years of service eligible for promotion or appointment as temporary Stenographers?
- Can an appointment be considered regular if the appointee meets the length-of-service requirement despite lacking the standard educational qualification for direct recruitment?
- Does the period of service rendered by an employee whose appointment is found to be regular count towards seniority?
- Section 4, Federal Service Tribunal Act 1974
ORDER
1. ' USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 31-3-1988, whereby his appeal against the seniority of respondents No,3 & 4 was rejected.
2. ' The question involved in this case is whether an appeal was competent before the Tribunal under section 4 of the Federal Service Tribunal Act, 1974. The admitted position is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Stenotypist on 22-11-1974 on a trial basis for a period of three months. Eight others including respondents Nos.3 and 4 were also appointed on the same basis after that on different dates. On qualifying the shorthand and typing test prescribed for the purpose they were appointed on regular basis as Stenotypist w.e.f, 16-12-1980. After resolving their seniority dispute the petitioner was placed senior to respondents Nos. 3 and 4. The said respondents were appointed as Stenographers on 17-11-1980 and 27-11-1980 respectively against reserved posts for direct recruitment whereas the appellant was promoted as Stenographer on 1-1-1984. The main question on which their inter se seniority as fixed by the department is contested is that respondent No,3 Muhammad Aslam and respondent No,4 Muhammad Younas Sabir were irregular being against the terms of advertisement and also against the instructions contained in O.M. No,F.27/61/69- F-II, dated 23rd September, 1969 published as Sl. No,16 in the Estacode page 52 (1983 Edition).
3. ' According to the learned counsel the minimum educational qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Stenographer was Intermediate while the said two respondents were only Matriculate and as they were ineligible to the post of Stenographer, as such their appointment to be treated as ad hoc and this period of their irregular ad hoc appointment could not be counted towards their seniority and cannot be placed senior to the petitioner and also their promotion was unwarranted.
4. It is a matter of record that the two respondents were appointed in 1980 while the petitioner was promoted to the post of Stenographer on 1-1-1984 and thus in our view he has rightly been placed junior to the said respondents. The question is whether the said two respondents being Matriculate were eligible to the posts of Stenographer. The answer to the same is laid down in Estacode that Matriculate stenotypists who have rendered at least three years service as stenotypist will be eligible for promotion/appointment as temporary Stenographer. The requisite length of service of respondents Nos.3 and 4 since their appointment in 1974 and 1975 respectively was considered by the department and thus their appointments were regular and in accordance with the prescribed manner. Hence they cannot be described as ad hoc stenographers.
5. ' In the light of the above discussion, in our considered opinion it is not a fit case for interference by this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.