JUSTICE (RTD.) ABDUL GHANI SHAHKH, CHAIRMAN.- Briefly stated, the facts of present appeal are that appellant was appointed as Inspector (B-14) in Refrigeration & Air-Conditioning Technology in April, 1990 by Labour and Manpower Department, in a seniority list as stood on 31.12.2000 (circulated in June, 2001) appellant's name was at serial No.4 while the name of private respondent No.4 was at serial No.5, in April, 2003, meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened, which recommended three of appellant's senior so also private respondent No.4 who was junior to appellant for promotion to the post of Senior Instructor (B-16) while appellant was ignored. Such notification was issued on 22.04.2003, which the appellant challenged in his department representation but no final decision, was taken within stipulated period. Hence, this appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The sole reason for non-consideration the appellant's name for promotion was that he earned adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report for the year, 2000. The said adverse remarks communicated to the appellant through letter dated 17.05.2003, is a appellant's representation have already been expunged by respondent No.3 during the pendency of this appeal as per letter dated 10.10.2003 placed on record by official respondents. Therefore, the very basis on which appellant was deferred by the Departmental Promotion Committee, has been disappeared, in a case of Rauf Ahmed Vs. Govt, of Punjab and others. 1984 PLC (C.S) 207, it has been held that the material on the basis of which officer was superseded when no longer existed, supersession must go.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee was held in the month of April, 2003 and admittedly by that date the adverse remarks were not communicated to him which were letter communicated through letter dated 17.05.2003, therefore, the decision of the Departmental Committee superseding appellant was patently wrong rather illegal and was not in accordance with law. in the case of Muhammad Faruq Vs. The Province of Punjab and others (PLD 1987 SC 271), it was held that if the adverse remarks are not communicated or if so communicated, there is no record of their having been communicated and acknowledge by the concerned officer such adverse remarks should be ignored and could not be taken into consideration to decline promotion.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is accepted and the case is remitted to the Departmental Promotion Committee for the Directorate of Manpower and Training for reconsideration of appellant's case afresh for promotion to B-16 in accordance with law and the observations made hereinabove. No order as to costs.
6. Announced in open Court.
Given under our hands and seal of the Tribunal, this 20th day of June, 2004.