MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division and others (Copy)
The petitioner, a direct appointee to the post of Deputy Director (BPS-18) in the National Archives of Pakistan, challenged his seniority ranking relative to respondent No. 3, who had been promoted to the same rank earlier. The petitioner argued that respondent No. 3's initial promotion in 1976 exceeded the 50% quota reserved for promotees under the relevant Recruitment Rules, thereby rendering his seniority claim invalid. The Federal Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal, leading to the current petition for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court found that while respondent No. 3 was initially promoted on a temporary basis, his appointment was regularized in 1984 following the retirement of an incumbent and the creation of a new post, both of which fell within the promotee quota. Consequently, the Court held that since the respondent's regular appointment predated the petitioner's induction in 1987, the petitioner's claim of seniority was misconceived. The petition was dismissed, affirming that seniority is determined by the date of regular appointment against a sanctioned post within the prescribed quota.
- Does an ad hoc promotion regularized later against a quota vacancy confer seniority over a subsequent direct recruit?
- Can a direct recruit claim seniority over a promotee whose appointment was regularized prior to the direct recruit's induction?
ORDER
' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J---Muhammad Ramzan, petitioner herein seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 24-2-1993, of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby his appeal No, 237- R/1992, was dismissed.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner on his selection by the Federal Public Service Commission was directly appointed on 20-1-1987, as Deputy Director (BPS 18) in the Department of National Archives of Pakistan. Mr. Matloob Hussain respondent No,3 was promoted as Deputy Director in the same department on ad hoc/temporary basis with effect from 28-10-1976.
3. The petitioner was shown junior to respondent No,3 in the seniority list, and his representation against the same, did not find favour with the department, which led him to prefer appeal. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed on 24-2-1993, by the Federal Service Tribunal. Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that according to Recruitment Rules, 50% of the posts of Deputy Directors were to be filled in, by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment, through Federal Public Service Commission. Learned counsel pointed out that in 1976 three posts of Deputy Directors had fallen vacant, which were filled in only through promotion of the incumbents. The respondent No,3 was promoted in excess of the quota reserved for promotees as such he could not claim seniority over the petitioner from the date of his promotion.
5. The contention raised by the learned counsel for petitioner, has no merit. The perusal of the impugned judgment shows that no doubt the respondent No,3 was promoted on 28-10-1976, as Deputy Director on F. Temporary basis but by the retirement of Muhammad Siddiq, Deputy Director on 20-7-1980 and by creation of another post of Deputy Director during 1984, the respondent No,3's appointment was regularised in 1984, against a post reserved from promotees.
6. Admittedly the petitioner was inducted in service in 1987, long after the respondent No,3 had been appointed on promotion as Deputy Director on regular basis in 1984, against a vacancy meant for promotees. The petitioner's claim that the respondent No,3 held the post of Deputy Director on temporary basis reserved for direct recruits till he joined service is misconceived.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that this petition has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed.