Malik MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs FEDERAL DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION, ISLAMABAD and 42 others
The petitioner, a Trained Graduate Teacher, challenged before the Service Tribunal a seniority list issued in 1995, alleging that his colleagues' ad hoc appointments were illegally regularized to his detriment. The Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the petitioner's own appointment was regularized from a later date, that respondents who graduated earlier were rightly ranked senior, and that the appeal suffered from multifariousness due to the joinder of multiple causes of action. Upon petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the Tribunal failed to consider that a previous round of litigation concerning respondents Nos. 38 to 43 had been remanded by this Court for a fresh decision. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal limited to respondents Nos. 38 to 43 to examine this unaddressed aspect.
- Whether an employee whose own appointment was regularized on an ad hoc basis can challenge the regularization of similarly situated colleagues?
- Does combining different causes of action arising from time to time render a service appeal liable to dismissal for multifariousness?
- Whether the Service Tribunal is bound to consider previous remand orders of the Supreme Court regarding specific respondents in seniority disputes?
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 regularized 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 regularized only with effect from 7-7-1977.
Consequently, he could not have any grievance in regard to regularization of the respondents, who had been similarly regularized 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.