RUSTAM KHAN and anothers vs GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. EDUCATION
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal regarding the determination of seniority between direct recruits and promotees in the Education Department. The petitioners, appointed as Assistants via direct recruitment on 23-8-1987, contended that they should be ranked senior to promotees appointed on the same date because the vacancies they filled were technically available in 1986. They argued that the delay in the selection process was a deliberate attempt to favor promotees. The core legal question was whether direct recruits are entitled to seniority from the date vacancies became available or from the date of their actual appointment. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that seniority cannot be assigned from a date prior to the actual appointment to the post. The Court found that since the advertisement for the posts occurred in 1987 and the petitioners were appointed on 23-8-1987, they could not claim seniority over promotees appointed on the same date. The principle established is that seniority is determined by the date of appointment, not by the date vacancies theoretically arose.
- Can direct recruits claim seniority from the date vacancies became available rather than their date of appointment?
- Does the delay in the selection process for direct recruits entitle them to seniority over promotees appointed on the same date?
- Is seniority in government service determined by the date of appointment or the date of vacancy availability?
' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the N.- W.F.P. Service Tribunal, dated 24-9-1991.
2. The facts of the case are that in the year 1986, 44 posts of Assistants were available and according to the rules, 33 posts were to be filled in by promotion and 11 by direct recruitment. 33 posts of Assistant relating to direct quota were filled in the year 1986 while 11 posts reserved for direct recruitment were advertised on 14-3-1987. The petitioners are direct recruits. They appeared in the written test on 5-4-1987. They were selected by the Departmental Selection Committee and their orders of appointment were issued on 23-8-1987. During the year 1987, 57 posts of Assistant in the Departmental quota became available. The petitioners alongwith the promotees of 1987 were appointed on the same date i,e. 23-8-1987. As per rules the petitioners were placed juniors to the promotees. The petitioners being not satisfied with the order of seniority approached the Service Tribunal. The Service Tribunal dismissed their appeal. Hence the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as 11 posts for direct recruits related to the year 1986 were available, therefore, they would rank senior to the subsequent batch in which the respondents were promoted. According to the learned counsel, the direct selectees are entitled tot the seniority over the promotees of the same year because they ought to have been selected and appointed on an earlier date in the vacancies existed for the year 1986. The learned counsel submitted that in order to give benefit to the promotees, the selection of direct recruits was not made in the year 1986. Be as it may, factual position is that the advertisement was made for the posts in the year 1987. The petitioners had appeared in the written test on 5-4-1987 without any protest. The appointment orders were issued on 23-8-1987. The promotees of 1987 batch would, therefore. Rank senior to the petitioners in accordance with the rules. No violation of any rule has been made in making inter se seniority of the direct recruits and the promotees. The petitioners could not be assigned seniority from a date prior to their appointment to the posts.
4. There is no force in this petition. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 6 cases
- Mir Karam Ali Khan & 28 others vs Province of SIndh and Others 2022 SHC 198
- Bashir Ahmed Badini, D&SJ, Dera Allah Yar and others vs Hon'ble Chairman 2022 SCMR 448, 2022 PSC 1448, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 610
- DIRECTOR-GENERAL INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, ISLAMABAD and others vs AMIR 2010 PLC (C.S.) 946
- DIRECTOR-GENERAL INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, ISLAMABAD and others vs AMIR 2011 SCMR 389
- TARIQ JAVED vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, F.I.A., ISLAMABAD And 3 Others 1997 PLC (C. S.) 273
- TARIQ JAVED Versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL, F.I.A., ISLAMABAD 1997 PLC(CS) 273