ZAHID ARIF vs GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. through Secretary, S&GAD, Peshawar and 9 others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a service dispute regarding seniority rankings among Assistant Engineers in the N.-W.F.P. Building Sub-Division. The petitioner, who was recommended for appointment in a second batch by the Public Service Commission, challenged a seniority list that placed him below other candidates who were selected in an earlier batch. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, despite having a higher merit position than the respondents, was entitled to seniority over them given their earlier selection. The Service Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's appeal, relying on Rule 17(a) of the North-West Frontier (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, which mandates that individuals selected in an earlier batch rank senior to those selected in a later batch. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no legal infirmity in the application of the rule. The Court affirmed the principle that seniority in government service is determined by the date of selection batch rather than merit position alone when governed by specific statutory rules.
- Does a candidate selected in an earlier batch rank senior to a candidate selected in a later batch regardless of their relative merit positions?
- Is the seniority of government servants determined by the date of selection batch under the North-West Frontier (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989?
- Rule 17(a), North-West Frontier (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989
ORDER
' ' MAMOON KAZI, J.---The petitioner, an engineer, was serving as S.D.O. In Building Sub-Division at Peshawar.
2. It may be pointed out that (C & W) Department placed a request with the N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission for selection of suitable candidates for appointment against quota meant for direct recruitment. The N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission recommended 10 candidates for appointment. Subsequently, more vacancies occurred and the Commission recommended 8 candidates, including the petitioner, who placed at Serial No,,3 on the merit list. Subsequently, first batch of 12 officers was recommended for appointment in September, 1977, but the same did not include the petitioner. The petitioner was, however, recommended for appointment in the second batch in April, 1978.
3 The respondent department thereafter issued a tentative seniority list of Assistant Engineers, vide order dated 2-7-1989, placing the petitioner's name at Serial No,,
39. The petitioner felt aggrieved because respondents Nos.3 to 10 had been shown senior to him. However, the petitioner's request was ultimately declined. Thereafter, the petitioner first filed a departmental appeal and then he approached the Service Tribunal for redress. His appeal has, however, been dismissed and hence the present petition, for leave to appeal.
4. Although, there was no controversy in regard to the fact that the petitioner's name had been placed higher on the merit list than the said respondents, but his appeal was mainly dismissed on the ground that the said respondents being nominees for the first batch, were to rank higher than the petitioner on account of their initial selection. Reference was made by the Tribunal to rule 17(a) of the North-West Frontier (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, which provides that "a person selected for appointment to post in an earlier selection shall rank senior to person selected in a later selection".
5. Mr. Qazi Muhammad Anwar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Has not been unable to show that the judgment of the Tribunal suffers from any infirmity. The Tribunal has acted in accordance with the rule laid down in rule 17(a) and the judgment of the Tribunal does not appear to be open to exception.
' In the result, leave to appeal is refused.