NADIR SHAH, S.D.O., MINOR CANAL CELL, IRRIGATION SUB-DIVISION, DERA

1. ' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---This Civil Miscellaneous appeal has been directed against the order dated 12-10-1999 passed by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court through which the petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 preferred against a common judgment dated 12-8-1999 passed ,by the Balochistan Service Tribunal. Quetta in 4 separate service appeals, was returned to the Advocate-on-Record for tiling independent petitions.

2. ' The appeal was heard in chambers on 24-1-2000. The learned counsel was directed to tile certified copies and grounds of appeal in each case within a fortnight. Upon compliance of the order, the matter was again fixed in chambers on 12-4-2000 and it was directed that appeal be re- listed in Court and as per direction vide order dated 20-11-2000, the Civil Miscellaneous Application No.20 of 1999 alongwith main petition was re-listed in Court on 12-12-2000 subject to the objection raised by the Deputy Registrar (judicial).

3. ' Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in view of the successive order passed in chambers, the appeal would be deemed to have been disposed of and allowed and prayed for disposal of petition on merits as the filing of separate petitions in terms of office objection at this stage will be barred by time. Learned counsel submitted that since all appellants in the present miscellaneous appeal were respondents in all appeals before the Balochistan Service Tribunal, which were disposed through a common judgment, therefore, there was no need of filing separate petitions and a combined petition would be maintainable. The respondents in the main petition filed separate appeals before the Service Tribunal, therefore, notwithstanding the disposal of said appeals through a single judgment, the appellants were required to tile separate petitions. The office objection is, therefore, upheld and miscellaneous appeal is dismissed.

4. ' The dispute between the parties in the main petition their selection by the Public Service Commission, were appointed on regular basis vide order dated 22-9-1988 whereas the appointment of petitioners were made on ad hoc basis vide order dated 22-11-1987 and thus continued as ad hoc employee till regularization of their service in relaxation of the rules vide order dated 12-2-1990. Subsequently, on the direction of the Chief Minister, the seniority of the petitioners and respondents was re-determined and the petitioners were assigned seniority from the date of their initial appointment on ad hoc basis with the result that respondents were placed below the petitioners in the order of seniority. The respondents preferred separate appeals before the Service Tribunal which were allowed with the observation that the respondent being selectee of Public Service Commission would rank senior to the petitioners who were regularized through the process of selection by a Departmental Committee and that Chief Minister had no authority to interfere in the matter.

5. Learned counsel with the reference to relevant rules and Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974 contended that seniority is not a vested right of a civil servant under the ibid Act, therefore, the appeals before the Tribunal were bound to be dismissed. We may point out that a similar question was raised in Wajahat Hussain v. Province of the Punjab (PLD 1991 SC 82) and it was held that the rule of seniority contained in Rules 8(1)(a) of Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 is very specific and in the case of persons appointed by initial recruitment, their seniority inter se shall be fixed in accordance with the order of merit assigned by the Commission provided the persons selected for in a later selection'. This principle of seniority is also embodied in the parallel provision in the Province of Balochistan and applying the said principle, Nadir Shah and other petitioners herein, would be entitled to count seniority from the date of their regularization and not from the date of initial appointment.

6. ' We are, therefore, of the view that no exception can be taken to the law laid down by this Court in the above referred judgments. The petitioners would not stand on different footing, and thus, we with the dismissal of miscellaneous appeal also dismiss the main petition.