SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 12.10.2001 of the learned Punjab Service Tribunal, It arises out of the following circumstances.
2. While working as Assistant Professor in the Education Department of the Government -of Punjab, petitioner's deputation to Doha, Qatar, was approved w.e.f. 4.7.1988, initially for a period of two years. On his request, it was first extended for two years and again on petitioner's request it was extended by one year i.e. Up to 3.7.1993. He sought further extension, which was declined on which he proceeded on leave from 4.7.1993 to 30.4.1994 and reported for duty to his parent department on 7.5.1994. He was promoted as Associate Professor on 29.6.1996. He felt aggrieved of the said order and filed a representation for grant of promotion w.e.f. 1.9.1990, the date on which an officer next junior to him namely Muhammad Zaheer-ul-Haq, respondent No. 3, was promoted. His representation was rejected vide order dated 2.8.2000 and on appeal the learned Punjab Service Tribunal affirmed the orders passed by the departmental authorities.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned judgment of the learned Punjab Service Tribunal betrays lack of application of mind inasmuch as that the petitioner retired from service on 4.4.2005 but the learned Tribunal erroneously assumed the date of retirement of the petitioner as 30.12.1989. It is maintained that the learned Tribunal has held in a number of cases against the policy to ignore the deputationist, such as Prof. Abdus Sattar Chohan Vs. Government of the Punjab through Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore, etc. (NLR 1985 TD 180) and Safdar Ali Chaudhry Vs. Chief Secretary, Punjab and others (1985 PLC (C.S.)
972).
4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The matter of promotion of a civil servant is regulated by the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. However, there is no express provision in the said statute and the rules for promotion of a civil servant while serving in a foreign country on deputation. However, according to Rule 9(2) "promotion including proforma promotion shall not be claimed as of right by any civil servant".
5. A civil servant is entitled to be considered for promotion or proforma promotion and in this case petitioner's request for proforma promotion was considered and declined. Promotion in absentia is regulated inter alia, by the Government' of Punjab Policy Circular No. SO(S) 18-30/81, dated 20.11.1982 according to which a deputationist to a foreign government, on his return to Pakistan, could only be considered for promotion after earning ACR for full one year. The cases referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner relate to the period prior to the issuance of the policy circular dated 20.11.1982. Further, in both the aforesaid cases the orders sending the civil servants on deputation specifically stated that they would be given substantive or officiating promotion as the competent authority may decide.
6. We could find ample justification for the condition of earning confidential report for full one year by a deputationist on return to Pakistan i.e. To enable the Selection Board to determine fitness and suitability of a civil servant for promotion. The past record of a civil servant could not be considered as adequate to determine his fitness and suitability because of his stay abroad in foreign service.
7. It may also be noted that initial period of deputation of the petitioner was two years and had lie not requested for extension, he would have been considered on his turn for promotion. He was, however, more interested in serving a foreign employer and had availed benefits of the foreign posting for more than i.e years. A person who stays out of his cadre of his own volition and to serve his own interest could hardly be heard to say that his non-promotion at relevant time has caused legitimate grievance to him.
8. For the above reasons, we do not find it a fit case for interference irrespective of the controversy relatable to the efficacy of the policy directive of the Punjab Government referred to above. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave is declined.