' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.--- Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 8-7-2004.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of the instant petitions are that as back as on 23-1-1974, the Establishment Division constituted Accounts Group. Later on the relevant O.M. Was amended on 3- 3-1976 wherein mode of induction in the I.D.C. Was specified. The system of mode of induction/promotion as per the quota specified therein continued till 1999 when vide Circular No,1016-DIR(A)/3-1/Induction/97, dated 8-9-1999, the Auditor-General modified some of the conditions noted therein with regard to the promotion to the higher grade. As a result whereof, the officers of the office of Auditor-General who were not holding qualifications like I.C.M.A., I.C.A.P./MBA/M.Com./M.Sc. (Computer Science) had been denied the chance of promotion.
Consequently, their juniors who possessed such qualifications were inducted in the I.D.C. Leaving behind some of the seniors though they had long service at their credit and age-wise they were also seniors.
3. Thus, being aggrieved from the decision of the department, they preferred appeals before the Service Tribunal which have ultimately been accepted vide impugned judgment, concluding para. Therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow:- "24. For the aforesaid reasons, we are constrained to set aside the impugned circular of the Auditor-General dated 8-9-1999 read with Establishment Divisions' aforesaid letter dated 19-1-2001 and direct the respondents that induction in the I.D.C. Should continue to be made in line with para.4 of the Accounts Group's O.M. Dated 23-1-1974 as amended in 1976."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the circular issued in 1999 was subsequently got approved by the Auditor-General from the Establishment Division, therefore, it has got a legal sanctity and any action taken under it, shall stand ratified. On the other hand, learned Deputy Attorney-General as well as the learned counsel appearing for the caveators stated that the Auditor-General had no lawful authority to change the terms and conditions to the disadvantage of the respondents, inasmuch as the Establishment Division also cannot give approval to a circular which has got no legal backing. Therefore, under the circumstances the Service Tribunal had rightly declared the said circular illegal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel and have gone through the impugned judgment. It is to be noted that the Tribunal proceeded to accept the appeals filed by the respondents for the following reasons:- "(i) The impugned circular has materially changed the service prospect of the appellants who were now almost barred from induction in the I.D.C. And subsequent promotion which will cause them to be stagnant and with obvious financial consequences.
(ii) The change is in violation of section 3(ii) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 which prescribes that terms and conditions of service shall not be varied to the disadvantage of a civil servant.
(iii) The impugned circular is in violation and in conflict with section 9(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 because the basic formula of 50:50 whereby departmental promotees are to be inducted into the I.D.C. Has not been changed, induction/promotion in the IDC cannot be altered to the disadvantage of senior persons who have been considered on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness in accordance with Appointment. Promotion and Transfer Rules, 1973 with prospects of rising up posts in B-19 and above."
6. Learned counsel when called upon to explain as to whether the Auditor-General under the original O.M. No,1/2/74-ARC dated 23-1-1974 or amended O.M. No,2/1-75/ARC, dated 3-1-1976 enjoys authority or the jurisdiction to change the policy by exercising the powers which have not been delegated to him by the Establishment Division, frankly stated that except the policy as well as the impugned circular, there is no other instrument on record conferring the authority on him, however, his argument was that the Establishment Division had subsequently' given the approval of the impugned circular with ex post facto on 19-1-2001.
7. We have examined his arguments and also considered the letter of the Establishment Division dated 19-1-2001 but in our considered opinion the ex post facto approval of the Establishment Division would not make the circular valid and legal for the reasons that the circular itself is in conflict with the provisions of section 3(ii) read with section 9(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. It may be noted that as far as the Auditor-General is concerned, he in his capacity has got no lawful authority to lay down the policy unless it is approved by the Establishment Division, in accordance with the Rules of Business as well as the relevant law on the subject.
8. Keeping in view these facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly held that as far as the circular is concerned, it has got no legal backing or sanctity. Learned counsel conceded that subsequently the impugned circular issued in 1999 by the Auditor-General has been withdrawn.
This fact itself proves that it had no legal value, therefore, the Government did not allow it to continue to hold the field. Learned counsel further contended that as for as the appeals filed by the respondents before the Tribunal are concerned the same were barred by time, in this behalf, it may be noted that the Service Tribunal had the jurisdiction to condone the delay if those were beyond the limitation and interference by Supreme Court in the order of the Service Tribunal, condoning the delay in filing appeal before it would not advance the cause of justice in view of the law laid down in the case of Managing Director, Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd., Karachi v. Ghulam Abbas PLD 2003 SC 724.
9. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we see no substance in these petitions; therefore, the same are dismissed. .