TERENCE J SIGAMONY

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court ruled that the seniority of a civil servant is neither an inherent nor a fundamental right, but is determined in accordance with the relevant laws and rules.

“A civil servant cannot claim seniority with an earlier batch if he failed to fulfil the statutory prerequisite. The stretch of time consumed in repeating Common Training Programme (CTP) due to failure and subsequently qualifying it successfully in the next training program does not bestow any privilege or dispensation for determination of seniority with the original batchmates; rather, the length of finalized service is counted from the batch in which the CTP is cleared,” added a three-judge bench’s judgment.

The bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and comprising Justice Musarrat Hilaliand Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, heard an appeal of the Federation through the Secretary, Establishment Division, against the Federal Service Tribunal judgment dated 11.12.2023.

According to the facts, the respondent was appointed and joined the Police Service of Pakistan (PSP) as a probationer on 30.09.2016. He impugned the O.M. dated 22.10.2015, which conveyed the decision of the competent authority regarding the determination of seniority in the case of repetition of CTP due to unsatisfactory performance.

He was directed to repeat CTP with the 45th Batch and his seniority was fixed with the 45th CTP Batch, instead of his original Batch of 44th CTP. Since the departmental appeal of the respondent was not accepted, he approached the Tribunal, which declared the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 22.10.2015 ultra vires and, though it held that the order of repetition of CTP was valid, issued directions to fix the seniority of the respondent/appellant on the basis of marks obtained in the 44th but not on the basis of the 45th CTP.

The judgment said that the Tribunal failed to consider the niceties of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1990 [Occupational Groups and Services (Probation, Training and Seniority)] in which a proper criterion for determination of seniority has been laid down. The criterion to determine seniority is explicitly provided, and the core prerequisite is the passing of the final examination.

Nevertheless, the respondent appeared in the 44th CTP but could not qualify; therefore, he was provided an opportunity to join the 45th CTP, and after being declared successful, his seniority was rightly determined according to the niceties of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1990.

The judgment said that the Rules of 1990 were framed pursuant to Section 25 read with Section 6 and 8 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. According to clause (iii) of Rule 2 (definition clause), the “Final Passing Out Examination” means the Final Passing Out Examination conducted by the Commission or the department concerned after conclusion of specialized training.

At the same time, Rule 3 pertains to the Training Programmes and examinations which, inter alia, accentuates that every probationer shall undergo training in such training institutions and at such places and at such time and for such period and appear in such examinations as the government may specify, and any probationer who fails to undergo prescribed training and qualify the prescribed examination shall render his appointment liable to termination without notice.

It is further provided that a probationer who fails to qualify in any subject or subjects in the “Final Passing Out Examination” shall be allowed two more chances to appear in the examination to be held subsequently in such subject or subjects.