' IFTIKHAR MUHAMAMD CHAUDHRY, J---This petition has been filed for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 14th June, 2001 whereby Service Appeal No,1358 of 1996 filed by respondent No,2 Ghulam Murtaza son of Makudoom Noor Ellahi has been allowed.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that respondent No,2 was appointed as Mechanic in the office of Superintendent Mines. Rescue and Safety Station, Khushab on 11th January, 1986 whereas the petitioner Pervaiz Akhtar was also appointed as Electrician in the same department on 12th May, 1987. It so happened that vide order dated 14th December, 1992, the Chief Inspector of Mines Punjab, Lahore changed the nomenclature of the post of Mechanic to be as Rescue Apparatus Technician. Thereafter the Punjab Labour and Manpower Department, Inspector of Mines, issued service rules for the promotion of Foreman. As per item No,16, Foreman of the Electrical and Mechanical cadre were to be promoted. Those persons who had three year's Diploma in Electrical/Mechanic from the any recognized. Polytechnic Institution. In the meanwhile the post of Foreman has fallen vacant but the case of the respondent was not considered because the nomenclature of the post of Mechanic has been changed w,e,f, 15th December, 1992 to be as Rescue Apparata. Technician, therefore, he was not promoted and the petitioner was promoted as Foreman. As such respondent being aggrieved from the promotion of the petitioner, preferred appeal before the Service Tribunal, which has been allowed by means of impugned order. Relevant para therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "5. Arguments were heard and record perused. It is a matter of record that the appellant joined as Mechanic and respondent No,2 as Electrician. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant having joined earlier, (11-1-1986) than the respondents No,2 (12-5-1987) was senior. The Punjab Labour and Manpower Department Inspectorate of Mines Services Rules, 1993 govern the promotion to the post of Foreman. At serial No,16 of these Recruitment Rules the following method has been prescribed for filling the post of Foreman through promotion:--
(i) By promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness for amongst the holders of post of Electrician/Mechanic having 3. Years' experience as such and having diploma in the relevant trade.
' The above rule clearly lays down that both the Mechanic and Electrician formed the feeding cadre for promotion to the past of Foreman. The appellant was not considered at all at the time of filling the post of Foreman through promotion only because the nomenclature of appellant's post had earlier been changed from Mechanic to Technician vide an office order dated 14-12-1992 passed by the Chief Inspector of Mines Punjab. The department has not been also able to explain as to what necessitated this change and how the Chief Inspector of Mines was competent to make this change through an office order without giving any reasons. Even if this change was valid, it could not act retrospectively depriving the appellant, who had joined service as Mechanic, his right of promotion to the post of Faremen. It should have governed the subsequent recruitments. It is also significant that after promoting the respondent No,2 the department has got the Recruitment Rules amended by bracketing Rescue Apparatus Technician with Electical and Mechanical Technicians, which must have meant Electrician and Mechanic of original Recruitment Rules. This amendment lends support to the contention of the appellant that his diploma was equivalent to the Diploma of Electricians and Mechanics and the name of his post (Mechanic) was changed to Technician merely to deprive him of his right of promotion."
3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the Service Tribunal had taken into consideration, the order dated 15th December, 1992 passed by the Chief Inspector of Mines whereby the nomenclature of the post was changed. According to him even if this order is kept out of consideration but still the respondent was not eligible for promotion because he was not possessing three year's Diploma in Electrical/ Mechanical Technology, as admittedly he had Diploma in Instrument Technology, therefore, for lack of basic qualification he is not eligible for promotion.
4. On the other hand learned counsel on behalf of Advocate-General stated that during the pendency of the appeal before the Service Tribunal item No,16 of the Punjab Labour and Manpower Department Inspectorate of Mines Services Rules, 1993 has been amended according to which the criteria for promotion to the post of Foreman has been changed according to which even the Resource Apparatus Technician with five years experience is eligible for promotion of Foreman.
Learned counsel placed on record for our perusal relevant amended item No,16.
5. Respondent No,2 appeared in person and stated that as far as his diploma is concerned, it is equal to the Electrical or Mechanical Diploma as per certificate issued by the Principal Government Polytechnic Institute, Sargodha, dated 24th August, 1996.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner as well as the respondent in person and have also gone through the relevant Rules and amended Rule alongwith item No,16, it would be appropriate to reproduce herinbelow amended item No,16.
"(i) By promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness from amongst the holders of the post of Electrical Sub-Engineer having 3 years experience as such and Mechanical/Electrical/Rescue Apparatus Technician with 5 years experience as such and having diploma in the relevant field."
7. A perusal of above amended item No,16 indicates that a Rescue Apparent Technician with five years' experience is also eligible for promotion, therefore, in view of this development the Service Tribunal may have also examined the case of both the parties because the respondent, prima facie, also appears to be eligible for promotion to the cadre of Foreman, notwithstanding the fact that he possesses the Diploma of Instrument Technology.
8. Therefore, instead of finally determining the question relating to the promotion of the respondent No,2 to the post of Foreman, we consider it appropriate to remand the case to the Punjab Service Tribunal for reexamination of the case in view of the amended item, No,16, reproduced hereinabove, after providing proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
' Thus for the foregoing reasons, petition is converted into appeal and allowed. The impugned judgment dated 14th June, 2001 is set aside and case is remanded to the Service Tribunal for decision afresh, in the light of observations made hereinabove.
' Needless to observe that Service Tribunal shall dispose of the matter expeditiously as far as possible within a period of three months, preferably parties are left to bear their own costs.