' According to the writ petition, the petitioner a Graduate Engineer joined the Communication and Works Department (C&W) as an Assistant Engineer/SDO (BS.17) in the year 1979. He was promoted as an Executive Engineer (BS.18) in the year 1991 after clearance from the Departmental Promotion Committee vide order dated 8-6-1992. His services were placed at the disposal of the Education Department in the Civil Engineering Cell and the petitioner reported for duty; that vide notification dated 2-5-1995 (Annexure C) the petitioner was permanently absorbed as an Executive Engineer in BS.18 in the said Engineering Cell; that vide order dated 21-6-1995 (Annex. D) the petitioner was promoted as a Superintending Engineer (BS.19) on current charge basis, that since the case of the petitioner was not being considered by- the Provincial Selection Board for promotion to the said post, he filed Writ Petition No.14487 of 1995 in this Court and vide order dated 19-10-1985 it was directed that the petitioner will hold the said charge till his case is so considered; that during the pendency of the said writ petition efforts were made to repatriate the petitioner to his original department and a directive dated 15-1-1996 was issued. According to the petitioner this was done to bring back Khalil Ahmad Janjua on the said post. This Court again issued an order on 19-2-1996 restraining the respondents from acting in violation of the earlier order dated 15-10-1995; that vide order dated 8-12-1996 the petitioner was suspended from service and he filed Criminal Original No.1298 of 1996 and status quo was ordered to be maintained. The order of suspension then was challenged by filing Writ Petition No. 188 of 1997. This writ petition was disposed of in view of undertaking given by the Advocate-General, Punjab on 13-1-1997 that the order dated 8-12-1996 will be withdrawn; that the suspension order has still not been withdrawn; that while Writ Petition No.14487 of 1995 was pending the respondent No.2 convened the Provincial Selection Board who declared the petitioner unfit for promotion. It is then stated in the petition that the Board could not have met on 18-1-1997 when the proceedings are stated to have taken place. There is then explanation for registration of the criminal cases against the petitioner. With these averments the petitioner seeks a declaration that the decision of the said Selection Board declaring him to be unsuitable for promotion as Superintending Engineer (BS .19) be declared to be without lawful authority. The respondents in their parawise comments after objecting to the jurisdiction of the Court state that the petitioner was promoted as an Executive Engineer on officiating basis on 22- 12-1991; that he got himself transferred to the Education Department by using political influence and pressure from the office of the Chief Minister wherefrom a directive was issued on 10-9-1992 for the purpose and notwithstanding the fact that the Education Department was reluctant, the directive was got implemented; that similarly the petitioner was never absorbed by the Competent Authority by conscious application of mind, rather his absorption was also result of directives issued by the Chief Minister on 24-12-1992 and 13-4-1995 when both the Departments i.e. C&W as well as the Education opposed the absorption. It was then stated that the petitioner does not have 12 years service to his credit in the Engineering Cell of the Education Department. A long list of the deeds of the petitioner has been annexed to demonstrate his using political influence in the matter of service and another list has been filed of the pending complaints and inquiries against the petitioner; that the department was compelled under the Chief Minister's directive dated 15-6-1995 to post him as a Superintending Engineer on current charge basis for a period of six months.
However, on the dismissal of Writ Petition No.14487 of 1995 he stood reverted to the substantive rank of Executive Engineer. It has been alleged that the petitioner has even forged the notification of appointment on the said current charge basis. Regarding the said Sel&tion Board proceedings it was stated that the matter was considered by the Board and decided accordingly.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues with reference to the reasons stated in the minutes of the meeting of the Selection Board (Annexure R.16-A to the comments) that the Board has proceeded to find the petitioner unfit for the reason that he does not have 12 years' service in the department as Executive Engineer; that the officer had been charge-sheeted under Efficiency and Discipline Rules and inquires were pending against him in both the departments and a number of ACRs were missing. According to the learned counsel since the petitioner was permanently absorbed in the Education Department, his prior service in C&W has to be considered for the said promotion. As to the pendency of complaints and inquires relies on the case of N.A. Qureshi- v.
Government of Punjab (PLD 1982 Lahore 242) to urge that the same is no ground for refusing promotion and regarding the third reason states that his client cannot be held responsible for the missing ACRs. Learned counsel argues that the entire process smacks of mala fide and his client is being punished for filing said Criminal Original in this Court, Learned A.A.-G. And Mr. Tariq Shamim, Advocate for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that since the petitioner has been considered and found ineligible, the decision of Selection Board cannot be called in question otherwise than before a competent Service Tribunal. Further relies on the contents of the parawise comments ,and the annexures thereto to urge that the conduct of the petitioner disentitles him to any relief in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. Hafiz Tariq Nasim, learned counsel for the petitioner countered the objection to jurisdiction with the submission that since the effect of the said Board's proceedings is supersession of the petitioner the writ petition would be competent.
Relies on the case of Tahir Muhammad v. Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and another (1993 PLC (C.S.) 576).
3. I have gone through the records. To my mind, the Selection Board has recorded a finding that the petitioner is not eligible to be promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. This being so the said finding can only be challenged before the competent Service Tribunal. Needless to state that fitness for promotion or appointment and eligibility for appointment or promotion are two different concepts and whereas the former stands excluded from the jurisdiction of a Tribunal the later is not.
4. In view of the opinion formed above. I would not be deeming proper to discuss the matter on its merits in much detail. Suffice it to say that promotion to a higher post had never been considered to be the right of a civil servant. Even at times when the present Service Laws were not in force, the Courts were always reluctant to interfere in the said matter as it falls primarily within the domain of departmental authorities who considered the particular civil servant for promotion. However, right to be considered for promotion has always been guarded by the Courts but in the present case the petitioner has already been considered. However, the decision made by the Selection Board is not subject to the scrutiny of this Court in terms of Article 212 (2) of the Constitution of the country.
' The petitioner may, if so advised, approach the competent Tribunal to question the findings of the Selection Board. With these observations the writ petition is disposed.