' MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR I.C.A is directed against the order dated 18-4-2005 whereby the learned Single Judge, in chamber, of this Court dismissed W.P.No,4734/2004 filed by the appellant, seeking the following relief:-- "In view of the above submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that petition may graciously be accepted and the respondents Nos.1-3 may kindly be directed as per the revised seniority list, petitioner shall be considered for service benefits/promotion in the same way as has been allowed to his immediate junior specially respondent No,4 Karamat Ali and others."
2. The facts in brief are that appellant approached the Punjab Services Tribunal, Lahore with the prayer that as he had qualified the course for being placed in promotion List-C/1, the Inspector- General of Police, Punjab be ordered to place him in the said list along with those who had also qualified the departmental examination. This prayer was allowed by the learned Services Tribunal vide judgment dated 3-11-1997 with the following directions:-- "Since the appellant failed when he appeared along with his seniors in 1985 and was able to pass the course subsequently in 1988, it would only be consistent with the policy being followed by the Inspector-General of Police Punjab if the appellant is placed in C/1 at the bottom of those who appeared with the appellant and passed the course, and is further considered for promotion on the basis of the same in accordance with the rules."
' Feeling that the said order of the learned Punjab Service Tribunal was not implemented in letter and spirit the appellant filed W.P.No,4734/2004 seeking the abovementioned relief. The said Writ Petition was however, dismissed by the learned Single Judge, in Chamber, of this Court vide order date 18-4-2005 by holding that the judgment of the Services Tribunal already stood complied with and seniority of the appellant was fixed at the bottom of those Head Constables who passed last school course in the term ending March, 1988 and subsequently he was admitted to promotion list C/1 with his batchmates who qualified the lower school course in term ending September, 1985. The said order of the learned Single Judge has now been challenged through this I.C.A.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was in fact entitled to be placed in list-D w,e,f, 1988 with his batch mates but he has been placed in the said list from 1-7- 1993 which is violative of the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal and thus the learned Single Judge was wrong in dismissing the writ petition of the appellant.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Zafarullah Khan Khakwani, learned Law Officer has submitted that for the purposes of being placed in list-D in terms of rule 13.9 of the Police Rules, 1934 the basic requirement is that the candidate should have passed lower school course and Intermediate school course at the Police Training School and since the appellant passed intermediate class course in the term ending June, 1993, hence, he was rightly admitted to list-D w,e,f, 1993 and could not be placed in the said list w,e,f, 1988 when he had not yet passed the intermediate class course.
The learned Law Officer has therefOre argued that complaint of the appellant that order of the Service Tribunal was not rightly implemented, is not correct and in case if the appellant feels that after passing intermediate school course in the term ending June, 1993 his eligibility for placement in list-D was not correctly determined then the same is a fresh cause of action for which he may approach the competent authority as well as the Punjab Services Tribunal in terms of Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with section 4 of the Punjab services Tribunals Act, 1974, as the question of fitness and not the eligibility for proposition has been barred by section 4 of the said Act. Reliance has been placed on the case "Dr. Ahmad Salman Waris, Assistant Professor, Services Hospital, Lahore v. Dr. Naeem Akhtar and 5 others (PLD 1997 SC 382).
5. We have considered the abovementioned arguments of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the report and parawise comments filed in the writ petition.
6. Admittedly the appellant qualified intermediate class course in 1993 and was placed in list-D w,e,f, 1-7-1993 thus he cannot claim such promotion w,e,f, 1988 when he had not even passed the said examination and the same is also in line with the rule 13.9(1) of the Police Rules, 1934, reproduced below:-- "A list shall be maintained in each district in card index Form 13.9(1) of those head constables who have passed the lower school course and the intermediate school course at the Police Training School and are approved by the Deputy Inspector-General as eligible for officiating or substantive promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector. No head constable shall be admitted to this list who is not thoroughly efficient in all branches of the duties of a constable and head constable and of established integrity."
' In the light of above language of the Rule which is very much clear, the appellant could not claim his promotion and placement in list-D retrospectively because passing of intermediate class course is a condition precedent for being eligible to be placed in the said list. We therefore, agree with the contention of learned Law Officer that in case the appellant feels that placement of his name in the list-D w,e,f, 1-7-1993 has not been properly done or is violative of his claim of seniority the same amounts to accruing a fresh cause of action for which he can move the competent authority or for that matter to the Punjab Service Tribunal under section 4 of the above Act, because as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the above referred case PLD 1997 SC 380 it is the question of fitness and not the eligibility for promotion which has been ousted from the purview of the Punjab Services Tribunal. The appellant has therefore, failed to make out a case that judgment of the Services Tribunal was not correctly implemented. The learned Single Judge therefore, committed no illegality or irregularity in dismissing the writ petition. Similarly, this I.C.A.
Has no force and is accordingly dismissed.