' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---The above titled four civil appeals, by leave of the Court, involving common question of law and facts, are proposed to be disposed of through this single judgment.
2. Leave was granted in these appeals vide order dated 5-6-1996 in the following manner:-- "We propose to dispose of above mentioned four petitions by a common order as they arise from same impugned order of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal dated 16-8-1995, whereby the learned Tribunal gave following direction to the petitioner:-- "The Tribunal agrees with the contention and arguments of the learned counsel for the. Appellants and .On the basis of the previous judgment of the Tribunal dated 16-6-1991 as mentioned above, accepts the appeals and directs that_ the appellants be given the benefits of the impugned notification, irrespective of the fact that they do no possess degree in agriculture. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File be consigned to the record' ."
2. Respondents in the above petitions were appointed as Research Assistants in NPS-11 in the Research Wing of the Department of Agriculture Peshawar Region. The qualification required for the post of Research Assistant was B.Sc. (Hons.) in Agriculture B.Sc. (Agri.) or B.Sc. (2nd Div.) in relevant subject from a recognized University. By virtue of Notification dated 4-12-1972, the grade of Research Assistants was raised to NPS-16 (Class II Gazetted Officer) w,e,f, 1-12-1972. The respondents in the petitions were granted upgradation in NPS-16 alongwith other Research Assistants. In the year 1978, Federal Government took a further decision to redesignate the Research Assistants as Assistant Research Officers and upgraded the post of NPS-17. On the above decision of the Federal Government, Government of N.-W.F.P. Also redesignated the post of Research Assistants as Assistant Research Officers to NPS-17 by notification dated 26-4-1978.
However, the names of the respondents in the above petition were not mentioned in the said notification. The respondents being aggrieved, made representation and review petition both in their individual as well as representative capacity, but no response was made. They finally approached the Tribunal which accepted the appeal of respondents as aforesaid and directed the petitioner to extend them benefit of notification dated 26-4-1978.
3. In seeking leave to appeal, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the respondents in these petitions did not fulfill the requisite qualification prescribed by notification issued by the Government of N.-W.F.P. Adopting Federal Government decision to upgrade the post of Research Assistant as Research Officer. The learned counsel has invited our attention to the notification dated 2-3-1978 issued by the Government of N.-W.F.P., Finance Department which reads as follows:-- "No FD(SRI)2-51/172-III. In pursuance of the decision taken by the Federal Government that the posts having various designations and nomenclature for which the minimum qualification is a Veterinary or Agriculture graduate degree shall be placed in the Revised N.P.S. 17 with effect from 1-5-1977, the Provincial Government are pleased to decide that the following posts in Agri, and Animal Husbandry Department the minimum prescribed qualifications of which are as aforesaid, shall be placed in the Revised National Pay Scale No,17 from that date:- ' Agriculture Sector
(i) Agriculture Assistant (redesignated as Agriculture Officer/ Instructor).
(ii) Soil Conservation Assistant.
(iii) Research Assistant (redesignated as Assistant Research Officer).
' Animal Husbandry Sector
(iv) Veterinary Assistant Surgeon (redesignated as Veterinary Officer, Health).
(v) Research Assistant (redesignated as Veterinary Officer (Dairy).
(vi) Field Dairy Assistant (redesignated as Veterinary Officer (Dairy).
' The Provincial Government are also pleased to place the following posts (in Agriculture and Animal Hasbandry Departments) for which the minimum qualification is a Veterinary or Agri.
Degree in Revised National Pay Scale No,17 w,e,f, 1-5-1977 Or the date of actual creation of the posts which ever be later on ad hoc basis till the relevant recruitment Rules prescribing the requisite qualifications are notified by the Government.
' Agriculture Sector
(i) Chemical Assistant (redesignated as Agri. Officer (Laboratory).
(ii) Land Development Officer.
(iii) Agriculture Extension Officer.
' Animal Husbandry
(iv) Sheep Development Inspector
(v) Cattle Development Inspector
(vi) Agtostrologist
(vii) Laboratory Manager
(viii) Livestock Manager
3. Grade-17 will be admissible to the incumbents of the posts mentioned in para. I above who were in position on 30-4-1977 and also possessed the prescribed minimum qualification of a degree in Agri. Or Veterinary in the respective sector, Grade-17 will be personal to them and they will be entitled to further promotion only after acquiring the qualifications of M.Sc. (Agri.) or M.Sc.
(A.H.)/D.V.M.
4. As regards the incumbents of the posts mentioned in paragraph 2 above, they will also be entitled to grade 17 provided they were in position on 30-4-1977 and possessed a degree in Agriculture/Veterinary. The grant of grade-17 to them will be on ad hoc basis till the relevant recruitment rules prescribing the said qualification are notified by the Government, G-17 will be personal to them and they will be entitled to further promotion after regularizing of G-17 appointments only on acquiring the qualification of M.Sc. (Agri.) or M.Sc. ( A . H .)/D . V .M . The ad hoc appointments will be subject to the usual conditions that till the recruitment rules are approved such appointment will be reviewed and extended on six monthly basis.
5. Minimum qualification for initial recruitment to all the above posts w,e,f, 1-5-1977 in the Agriculture Sector will be M.Sc. (Agri.) and in the Animal Husbandry Sector M.Sc. (A.H.) DVM. All those appointed against the above posts on 1-5-1977 and thereafter and who possessed B.Sc. (A.H.) degree in Animal Husbandry Sector will be entitled to grade 16. They will be eligible for Grade-17 and for further promotion only after acquiring the qualification of M.Sc. (Agri.) or M.Sc. (A.H.) DVM in the respective sector.
6. The names of the incumbents of upgraded posts will be published in the Gazette on obtaining the approval of M.D.A. In each case in accordance with the appointment Rules, 1975 and the payment of arrears allowed as may be due on or after 1-5-1977 after normal deductions."
The learned counsel contends that the notification clearly prescribed the minimum qualification for the redesignated/upgraded post in NPS-17 as Veterinary of Agriculture Graduation degree (B.Sc.
Agri or B.Sc. Vet) and since the respondent were only B.Sc., they were not entitled to the concession of the notification dated 2-3-1978. The contentions raised question of law of general importance and we, accordingly, grant leave to appeal.
3. Learned Addl. Advocate-General N.-W.F.P. While placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Muzaffar Iqbal (1990 SCM R 1321) has contended firstly that no one can claim promotion to a higher post as a vested right and the Government at any time can prescribe and enhance the qualification for recruitment or promotion to a post in order to maintain the efficiency in service and that the respondents, without possessing the requisite qualification, cannot claim any right to hold the post of Assistant Research Officer and secondly that the grievance of the respondents in the service appeals filed by them in the Service Tribunal in 1995 related to the notification dated 26-4-1978, therefore, their appeals were hopelessly barred by time but the Tribunal despite there being no reasonable explanation, condoned this inordinate delay and extended the benefit of the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in service appeal "Buzurg Jamiher and others v. Government of N.-W.F.P." without any legal justification. It is stated that initially respondents were appointed as Research Assistants (BPS-11) in Research Wingh Department of Agriculture, Government of N.W.F.P. And subsequently, they were given BPS-16 on the upgradation of the post of Research Assistant. The qualification for the post of Research Assistant was B.Sc. (Hons) in Agriculture or B.Sc. (Agri.) or B.Sc. (2nd Division) in relevant subject from a recognized University and on re-designation of the post of Research Assistant as Assistant Research Officer, (BPS-17) vide notification dated 2-3-1978, the incumbents of the posts, who were graduate in Agricultural, were allowed BPS-17 with designation of as Assistant Research Officer and that the respondents being not agricultural graduates were not qualified to hold the post of Assistant Research Officer. Lastly, learned counsel argued that since the appellant was proceeded ex parte in appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, the correct factual and legal position could not be brought to the notice of the Tribunal.
4. The learned counsel representing the respondents on the other hand, has submitted that Buzurg Jamiher and others, the colleagues of the respondents, being aggrieved of the notification dated 9-4-1978 filed Service Appeal bearing No,27/81/Neem/90 before the Service Tribunal which was allowed vide judgment dated 16-6-1991, wherein the Tribunal directed the Government of N.-W.F.P.
To treat the appellants at par to their colleagues who were allowed BPS-17 on re-designation of the post of Research Assistant as Assistant Research Officer and the Government in pursuance of the above judgment allowed BPS-17 to Buzurg Jamiher and others with designation of Assistant Research Officer but refused the said benefit to the respondents through discrimination. Learned counsel while placing reliance on Accountant-General Pakistan Revenue v. Arbab Mukhtar Ahmad (1986 SCM R 1206) submitted that in the light of principle of equal treatment, the respondents were rightly allowed the benefit of the above referred judgment. He added that although the respondents were not party in the above said appeal but the question of law relating to the terms and conditions of service of Research Assistants decided by the Tribunal in the appeal in question would equally be applicable to them being placed in the same position. In support thereto, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. Secretary, Establishment Division (1996 SCM R 1185) wherein it was held that "If the Service Tribunal or Supreme Court decides a point of law relating to the terms of service of a civil servant which covers not only the case of civil servant who litigated but also of other civil servants, who may have not taken any legal proceedings, in such a case, the dictates and rule of good governance demand that the benefit of such judgment by Service Tribunal/Supreme Court be extended to other civil servants, who may not be parties to the litigation instead of compelling them to approach the Service Tribunal or any other forum."
' In reply to the objection relating to the question of limitation in appeal before the Service Tribunal, learned counsel submitted that the representation filed by the respondents remained pending with the concerned authorities and an assurance was also given to them through letter dated 10-11- 1993 for consideration of their case in the light of judgment under discussion and that on subsequent refusal of the Government to accept their demand, they approached the Service Tribunal, therefore, the respondents remained vigilant in pursuing the matter and the delay in filing the appeal if any, was not due to their fault. The learned counsel placing reliance on Chief Engineer (North) v. Saifullah Khan Khalid (1995 SCM R 776) contended that it was optional for the respondents either to file appeal within the statutory period from the date of notification or to wait for the decision of the representations by the departmental authorities.
' The learned Additional Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P., without disputing the grant of BPS-17 to Buzurg Jamiher and others, in the similar situation in light of verdict given by the Service Tribunal vide judgment dated 16-9-1991 in another service appeal tried to distinguish the case of respondents on the ground that no one can claim BPS-17 as or right without having the 'requisite qualification.
5. The Tribunal in its earlier judgment in service appeal filed by Buzurg Jamiher and others, held as under:-- "(1). That the impugned notification has not been drawn in accordance with the principles laid down in the Notification issued by the Federal Government. Notification issued by the Federal Government does not differentiate between the Research Agriculture and those who possess only a graduate degree in science.
(2) After the issuance of the impugned notification, the appellants have not been assigned any other duty than the one which has been upgraded from NPS-16 to NPS-17. In fact the appellants who possess only science degree but their posts have not been upgraded from NPS-16 to NPS-17 for performing identical duties.
(3) After upgradation of the posts the concept of Research Assistant in the Agriculture Department has been eliminated.
(4) The respondent department has not shown that any separate budget in the salary has been allocated for the Research Assistants whose posts have not been upgraded."
6. The Tribunal, in the light of above conclusions held that all Research Assistants whether agricultural graduate or simple science graduate, would be entitled to the post of Assistant Research Officer. This decision of Tribunal on the point of law was not further challenged by the appellant which having attained finality was also implemented by the Provincial Government. The Tribunal following its earlier judgment, allowed the appeal of the respondents with observation that they being placed in the same position, would be entitled to same treatment and the learned Additional Advocate-General has not been able to distinguish the case of the present appellant on merits. The respondents, after rejection of their representation approached the Tribunal without further loss of time and the Tribunal in view of their explanation and special features of the case, having discussed the question of limitation in detail while treating the appeal within time, proceeded to decide the same on merits. There is force in the contention of learned Additional Advocate-General that the Tribunal has not exercised the discretion properly in dealing with the question of limitation. We find that the Tribunal in the light of principle of equal treatment held that respondents would be entitled, to the benefit of its judgment rendered in the service appeal filed by Buzurg Jamiher and others against Government of N.-W.F.P. c without any discrimination and we, in the light of law laid down by this Court in 1996 SCM R 1185, supra, take no exception to the view of the Tribunal.
17. For the foregoing reasons, these appeals fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs.