' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.---By filing this writ petition, Amjad Farooq-petitioner No,1 had called in question the order dated 4-8-2005 passed by Gull Hameed Khan Rokhri-respondent No,1 to be illegal, without lawful authority and the same may be quashed.
2. Briefly, the facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are that 23 vacancies of Kanugos were existed in District Rajanpur on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. For the posts of Kanungos, 170 Patwaris were to be considered, but due to the criteria laid down by the Departmental Promotion Committee, only 43 Patwaris were considered in the meeting convened on 26-8-2004.
The petitioners challenged the Departmental Promotion Committee by filing departmental appeal and thereafter by filing the appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, who vide his judgment dated 23-5-2003 announced on 2-6-2003 accepted the appeal of some of the petitioners with the observations as under:-- "It is observed that the Departmental Promotion Committee shall score out the condition of passing of the examination of Kanungos by the Patwaris as the rules were subsequently amended, details given in the preceding paragraph of this judgment, and shall not form part of the criteria which shall come up for consideration of merit policy. The Departmental Promotion Committee shall be convened within a period of four months from today for consideration of the promotion of the appellants and others to the post of Kanungos."
' In the light of the judgment passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Board of Revenue issued direction to the Executive District Officer (R) regarding the implementation of the decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal and the Government of Punjab also issued direction to the E.D.O.R, Rajanpur to implement the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal. In the lig.n of judgment passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, direction issued by the Board of Revenue and Government of Punjab, the Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted and its meeting was scheduled to be held on 29-3-2005, but some of the employees challenged the constitution of D.P.C. And its proceedings before this Court in W.Ps. Nos. 1610 and 2452 of 2005. In the interim order dated 29-3-2005 passed in C.M. No,2 of 2005 issued notice to the respondents that the decision of the D.P.C. Shall not be acted upon till the final decision of this writ petition. The D.P.C. Meeting was held on 12-4-2005 considering 170 Patwaris for promotion as Kanungos but finally recommended 12 Patwaris including the petitioners, but due to the interim order passed by this Court in W.Ps. Nos.1610 and 2452 of 2005, decision was not acted upon. The writ petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 28-7-2005 with the observation that if writ petitioners have any grievance, they shall approach the Punjab Service Tribunal. After the decision of writ petition, there was no alternate but to implement the decision of Punjab Service Tribunal. The E.D.O. (R) vide notification dated 2-8-2005 ordered that the petitioners are entitled for the .Salary of Kanungos from 2-8-2005 i,e, the joining date and it was further held that Patwaris, who were promoted in D.P.C. Held on 26-8-2005 as Kanungos are not entitled to salary as Kanugos. After the implementation of the decision of Punjab Service Tribunal and the decision given by this Court, there were no justification for the employees, who were parties before this Court in the writ petitions, before Punjab Service Tribunal to agitate the matter further but they again on one side filed departmental appeal before the Member Board of Revenue and on the other side, they challenged the judgment passed in W.Ps. Nos.1610 and 2452 of 2005 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Surprisingly, the employees who filed departmental appeal before Member Board of Revenue and C.P.L.A. In the Hon'ble Supreme Court approached the Minister for Revenue of Punjab through one application by concealing all the facts and by not bringing the facts to the notice of Minister that the matter has been finally decided by the Punjab Service Tribunal or by the High Court. Respondent No,1 marked the applications for inquiry to D.C.O., Rajanpur and further implementation, recommendations were ordered to be held in abeyance till further order. In the light of direction given by respondent No,1, D.C.O. Rajanpur marked the application E.D.O. (R) for compliance and the E.D.O. (R) stopped the implementation of the notification issued by D.0.(R) in compliance of the order dated 4-8-2005 passed by respondent No,1.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that promotion of any civil servant is terms and conditions of service, which has to be made strictly in accordance with law by the competent authority, and if any person is aggrieved, he may file departmental appeal as well as to challenge the same before the Punjab Service Tr bunal. Respondent No,1 has no authority to pass any order regarding promotion, transfer or posting of the employees. The competent authority in revenue hierarchy in the District Officer (R), Executive District Officer (R) and the Board of Revenue, Punjab, the Minister's function under the rule of business is only administrative in nature and interference in promotion, transfer or posting of the civil servant by the Minister has already been struck down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in so many cases. Further contends that the impugned order passed by the Minister, whereby, the implementation of the D.P.C., recommendations in the light of judgment passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal and the direction given by P.S.T dated 26- 4-2005 has been held in abeyance is totally illegal, unlawful, without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The D.P.C's recommendations dated 12-4-2005 have already been implemented after the notification dated 2-8-2005 by E.D.O. (R). The order passed by Minister (respondent No,1) dated 4-8-2005 has no retrospect effect and the direction not to implement the notification is also illegal and without lawful authority. An order, once has been implemented, cannot be set aside through an administrative order only the remedy available to the aggrieved person is to challenge the same before the competent forum constituted under the law. The aggrieved persons had already challenged the D.P.C. Recommendation and its implementation before M.B.R through departmental appeal and that appeal is still subjudice. If any administrative order is passed, it will definitely prejudice the judicial proceedings pending before the M.B.R.
4. Conversely, learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing on behalf of respondents states that the direction order was issued by Muhammad Arshad Gopang, who was not District Officer (R), having the powers of District Collector, was competent to issue order but as the post of the District Officer (R), Rajanpur was vacant, he was temporarily given charge only to look after the routine work of the post. He was not competent to issue direction orders because it is mandatory for him having the powers of District Collector. It is admitted by respondent No,2 that the Minister for Revenue, Relief and Consolidation, Punjab (respondent No,1) on the application of the employees order respondent No,2 to conduct the inquiry into the promotion of junior Patwaris as Kanungos and also held in abeyance the orders passed by the officiating District Officer (R) in compliance of the order of Punjab Services Tribunal. Further contends that on the direction of the Minister, he had conducted the inquiry and found that promotion of Patwaris as Kanungos has not been done according to the rules and regulations for promotion because many senior Patwaris were ignored due to the reason that either their ACRs were not complete or these were not counter-signed and instead of deferring them junior Patwaris, were promoted which means that the seniors were ignored and were deprived without any justification.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos.4 to 10 argued that the Minister is the Incharge of the Department and on application, if some irregularity is found by him, he can order for an inquiry with regard to the same to rectify the illegality or injustice done by the employees.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record, the reply filed by the respondents and relevant law on the subject. The point involves in the instant writ petition is as to whether Minister for Revenue (respondent No,1) while exercising powers of supervision vesting in the Government, does possess powers to interfere with exercise of judicial functions of specified statutory authorities. In the instant case on the basis of Departmental Promotion Committee recommendation, District Officer (R) issued letter dated 26-8-2002 regarding the promotion of 23 Patwaris as Kanungos. The present petitioners were promoted by the criteria adopted by the D.P.C.
Some of the petitioners filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. P.S.T. Vide, its judgment dated 23-5-2003 announced on 2-6-2003 accepted the appeal with the observations as under:-- "It is observed that the Departmental Promotion Committee shall score out the condition of passing of the examination of Kanungos by the Patwaris as the rules were subsequently amended, details given in the preceding paragraph of this judgment, and shall not form part of the criteria which shall come up for consideration of merit policy. The Departmental Promotion Committee shall be convened within a period of four months from today for consideration of the promotion of the appellants and other to the post of Kanungos."
' In the light of judgment passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, the Board of Revenue issued direction to the E.D.O. (R) for implementation of the decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal.
Government of the Punjab also issued direction to E.D.O. (R), Rajanpur to implement the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal immediately in the light of direction given by the Board of Revenue and the Government of the Punjab. The Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted and its meeting was scheduled to be held on 29-3-2005 when two writ petitions were filed in this Court and the Departmental Promotion Committee was directed to proceed with the meeting, but the decision of the said Committee shall not be acted upon till the decision of these writ petitions.
However, the said writ petitions were dismissed on 28-7-2005 with the observations that if the petitioners have any grievance, they shall approach the Punjab Service Tribunal. The judgment of this Court has been challenged by filing C.P.L.A. In the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, which is still pending. On the other hand, in compliance of the Punjab Service Tribunal and the direction issued by the Board of Revenue, Punjab and in the light of D.P.C. Recommendation, notification dated 2-8-2005 was passed by the E.D.O (R) that the petitioners are entitled for the salary of Kanungos from 2-8-2005 i,e, the joining date. It was further held that the Patwaris, who were promoted by the D.P.C. Held on 26-8-2005 as Kanungos are not entitled to salary of Kanungos, the, employees, who were party before the Punjab Service Tribunal. Respondent No,1 vide his order dated 4-8-2005 directed that the implication of D.P.C. Recommendation passed in compliance of the order of Punjab Service Tribunal be held in abeyance.
7. The learned A.A.G. As well as learned counsel for respondents Nos.4 to 10 had failed to show any law or authority, which confers the powers upon Minister (respondent No,1) authorizing to act in revision or review over the judicial orders made by the Punjab Service Tribunal and this Court in Writ Petitions Nos.1610 and 2452 of 2005. The general powers of supervision vesting in the Go'vernrnent has never been deemed to include a power to interfere with the exercise of judicial functions of the specified statutory authorities unless the statute by itself contains a provision in that behalf.
8. In this view of the matter, reliance can be placed on Abdul Aziz v. Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue Punjab and others (1980 SCM R 509). Thus, it is held that the Minister for Revenue, Relief and Consolidation Punjab, Lahore (respondent No,1) had no jurisdiction or power to go behind the finding of fact recorded by the Punjab Service Tribunal and acted upon by the Revenue authorities in compliance of the order of the said Tribunal. As the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal was not challenged by any of the party before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it attains finality.
9. The order dated 4-8-2005 passed by respondent No,1 directing District Coordinating Officer, Rajanpur (respondent No,2) to hold an inquiry report regarding the promotion of the petitioners.
Since the order passed by respondent No,1 is without lawful authority, same is set aside and all the subsequent inquiries and proceedings conducted by respondent No,2 in compliance of the order of respondent No,1 are also struck down. The effected employees, who had filed appeal before the Member Board of Revenue, Punjab and also in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan shall pursue the same and the respondents Department shall not pass any order till the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. W.P. Is allowed.