' MOAZZAM HAYAT (MEMBER).---With this judgment we shall decide the above titled appeals as their facts are identical. The appellants in all these appeals are employees of Civil Aviation Authority. Following prayer has been made by them in their appeals.
"PRAYER CLAUSE ' For the Reasons and Grounds stated above, it is respectfully prayed as under:--
(i) Respondents be directed to frame proper Regulations as there exists a statutory guarantee that the Terms and Conditions of the Appellant are to be governed by such Regulations.
(ii) In the absence of proper Regulations, the practice followed so far of promoting persons in the petition of Appellant to PG-9 be continued.
(iii) Impugned Criteria for promotion particular Para. 4 be set aside as void on the grounds be being irrelevant and arbitrary.
(iv) Appellant be considered for promotion to PG-9 as he possesses the adequate skill and training without which the requirements of the job in the Electronics Branch cannot be properly discharged.
(v) Respondents be directed not to discriminate against Appellant who possesses the requisite qualification while promoting other employees to be considered eligible for promotion to PG-9 even though they do not possess requisite skill and training required for efficient discharge of duties in Electronic Branch of the Respondent Authority.
(vi) Any other relief deemed appropriate to be peculiar facts of the case may also be afforded to the Appellant."
2. The appellants are Diploma Holders in Technology and are in PG-8. It is submitted by them that therefore promotion criteria dated 10-8-1998 is not applicable to them, they cannot be deprived of their promotion in PG-9. The contention of the appellants is that this criteria has been fixed by the respondents in violation of principle of law laid dowin in PLD 1995 SC 701.
3. All the appeals are resisted by the respondents. It stated that under the rules of service the appellants cannot be promoted to PG.9 as they are not graduate Engineers. According to them promotion to PG.9 and above is made by selection from amongst graduate Engineers. The respondents have also placed reliance on the aforementioned Authority of the Supreme Court on which reliance has been placed by the appellants.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
5. The promotion criteria fixed vide letter dated 11-8-1998 issued by the General Manager (Personnel) of the respondents is not relevant as far as the present appellants are concerned. This criteria was fixed for "eligibility for promotion to PG-7 and PG-8". Since the appellants are already in PG-8, therefore, the said letter dated 11-8-1998 is not worth-consideration.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that promotion of the appellants in PG.9 and above could not be denied on the ground that they were not graduate Engineers. According to the learned counsel this condition did not exist when the appellants had entered into service. His contention is that this condition could not be applied retrospectively. His further argument is that the appellants possessed the necessary academic qualifications and experience making them eligible for selection in PG-9 and above.
7. In the memo. Of appeal it is maintained by the appellants that in the absence of proper regulations the appellants could not be deprived of their right to get promotion to PG.9 and above.
This averment made in the memo. Of appeal is factually incorrect. We have before us the CAA Service Regulations. The relevant regulations relating to promotion criteria are reproduced in verbatim as under:-- "PROMOTION CRITERIA
(a) Promotions upto PG.-8 shall be made on the basis of fitness-cum- seniority. Fitness, inter alia, shall be determined of a person conforming to prescribed requirements for each higher post.
Promotion to PG-9 and above being selection posts, shall be made on the basis of merit and suitability.
(b) No employee shall have any claim to a particular post by virtue of his seniority alone.
(d) Engineering posts of PG-9 and above would be filled only by graduate Engineers registered by Pakistan Engineering Council except as provided in schedule at Appendix "A"
8. The respondents have prescribed the criteria for promotion to Engineering posts of PG.9 and above by enforcing the above regulations. We are, therefore, constrained to hold that this contention of the appellants is not correct that respondents have not fixed any criteria for promotion to Engineering posts of PG.9 and above. The appellants are not graduate Engineers.
They are, therefore, not eligible for promotion, by selection, to the Engineering posts of PG.9 and above.
9. Since both the parties have relied on PLD 1995 SC 701, therefore, we shall reproduce the relevant part of the judgment which is as under:-- "13. We may again observe that it is exclusively within the domain of the Government to decide whether a particular qualification will be considered sufficient for promotion from a particular Grade to a higher Grade and it is also within the domain of the Government to change the above policy from time to time as nobody can claim any vested right in the policy. However, it cannot abdicate its power to decide the above question in favour of a corporate body which is not in its control not it can act in a manner which may be violative of Article 25 of the Constitution on account of being discriminatory. It is still open to the Government for future to provide that academic qualification of B.Tech (Honours) will not be considered sufficient for promotion from BPS-16 to BPS-17 if the same does not violate the above principle."
10. A careful reading of the judgment of the apex Court reveals that it is exclusively within the domain of the Government to decide whether a particular qualification will be considered sufficient for promotion from a particular grade to a higher grade and it is also within the domain of the Government to change the promotion policy from time to time as nobody can claim any vested right in that policy. The Civil Aviation Authority is controlled by the Federal Government. It enjoys the same powers as are vested in the Government to decide whether a particular qualification would be sufficient for prmotion from a particular grade to higher grade and to change that policy and qualifications from time to time. This is precisely what the Authority has done. By enforcing the aforementioned regulations the respondents have exercised the power vested in them. We are of the view that no illegality was committed by the respondents in enforcing these regulations.
11. .The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the said regulations cannot be given any retrospective effect and the appellants could not be deprived of their rights to be considered for selection in PG.9 and above. This issue has been resolved by the apex Court. It is clearly held by the apex Court that it is within the domain of the 'Government to change its policy from time to time as nobody can' claim any vested right in the policy. From the judgment of the apex Court it is established that the respondents could formulate policy for promotion to PG.9 and above even for the employees who were is service before the enforcement of the policy. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is, the before, repelled.
12. The later part of the above-mentioned para. Of the judgment of the apex Court is very important. It says that "It is still open to the Government for future to provide that academic qualifications of B.Tech (Honours) will not be considered sufficient for promotion from BPS-16 to PBS-17 if the same does not violate the above principle". Since the Government has been given the right to provide academic qualifications for certain posts in the future also, therefore, the argument advanced by Dr. Abdu Basit, Advocate as to the retrospective effect of the regulations relating to promotion stands nullified. We hold in the circumstances that by prescribing the qualifications of degree in Engineering for promotion to PG.9 and above the respondents did not commit any illegality or irregularity nor did they encroach upon the rights of the appellants in any manner.
13. The Engineering Council definitely does not come into picture. It is the CAA which enjoys the powers to fix qualifications and criteria for giving promotion to its employees. The Government and for that matter the CAA can. Prescribe qualifications without consulting Pakistan Engineering Council. In the present case the regulation prescribed by the respondents did not provide for any consultation with the Pakistan Engineering Council. In the regulation it was stated that only those graduate Engineers would be eligible for Engineering posts of P.G.9 and above who had registered themselves in the Pakistan Engineering Council. The Pakistan Engineering Council has not been involved by this regulation to confirm the academic status of an Engineer. The only condition mentioned in the regulation is that the graduate Engineer must have registered his name with the said Council. Registration with Pakistan Engineering Council does not mean that the status of the graduate Engineer is to be detained by it to enable that Engineer to get promotion in the CAA. The appellants are thus under a misconception that their academic qualifications are being controlled and regulated by the Pakistan Engineering Council in the matter of their promotion to PG.9 and above.
14. The appellants have stated that about 24 employees who were not B.Sc. But were only F.A./F.Sc/B. Com/M.A. Were promoted vide Telex No.Hq.CAA/2402/5/PER ',dited 30-6-2000. The list of these employees has been placed on record as Annexure C.We have seen this list and find that it is not relevant as far as the present appeals are concerned. The 24 employees mentioned in the list were promoted against the posts for which the required academic qualification was B.Sc. The academic qualifications of these employees were definitely not B.Sc. Engineering. In the present case the prescribed qualification for promotion to PG.9 and above is graduate-in-Engineering. The list produced by the appellants is not of Engineers. We are unable to ascertain from the list the status of the said employees but the fact that some of them are B.A./M.A. Proves that their services were not technical in nature. In any case they were not Engineers. Their, promotion to the post for which the required qualification was B.Sc. May not have been in violation of the rules. In the absence of the details and relevant record we are unable to subscribe to this contention of the appellants that their case is also at par with the aforementioned employees. We are not prepared to accept the appeals simply because some employees had been promoted to posts for which they did not hold the presaribed academic qualifications. Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is not attracted as far as the appellants are concerned. They could make a grievance only had a Diploma Engineer been promoted in PG.9. Since it is not their case that employees placed at par with them had been promoted to PG.9 and above, hence they cannot be allowed to argue that the respondents had violated the provisions of Article 25.
15. For the above reasons we hold that regulations for promotion to Engineering post of PG.9 and above have been enforced by the respondents. Being Diploma Holders the appellants cannot equate E themselves with graduate Engineers. As such they are not entitled to be considered for selection in PG.9 and above. The appeals are dismissed in these circumstances.
6. No orders as to costs. Parties be informed.