1. G. SAFDAR SHAH, J.--The petitioner joined as Probation Officer of the Government of the Punjab on 18th November, 1960. On the re-organisation of the Department in the year, 1962, a post of Supervisor, Reclamation and probation was created therein but instead of the petitioner, who was the senior most Probation Officer serving in Rawalpindi Division, one Mr. Bashir Ali was temporarily appointed to that post although he was junior to him. On 1st April, 1962, therefore, the petitioner filed a representation with the Department with the result that Mr. Bashir Ali was removed from the said post and was directed to hand over the charge of it to ADC (General). On 9th February, 1970, however, the petitioner was promoted as Supervisor. But ever since then he con--tinued making representation to the Department for proforma promotion with effect from 1st August, 1969. The record would show that his representation was finally rejected by the Finance Department of the Punjab Government on 26th April, 1978. Subsequently the petitioner made another representation to the Director Reclamation but the same was rejected on 30th July, 1978.
2. Faced with this situation, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. But the same was dismissed, vide the impugned Judgment on the ground that the appeal was barred by time. The view taken by the Tribunal was that the order passed by the Finance Department of the Punjab Government on 26th April, 1978 dismissing the representation of the petitioner was the final order, and consequently his further represen--tation filed before the Director, Reclamation, was wholly unnecessary. In this view, the finding recorded by the Tribunal was that since the appeal filed by him against the said order of the Finance Department was out of time, the same could not be entertained as it was clearly barred by limitation.
3. We have heard the petitioner in person. On the question of limitation. On the basis of which his appeal had been dismissed by the Tribunal, there can perhaps be two views but after going through the record of the case, we discovered that the petitioner has no case on merit. It is not disputed that the petitioner was finally promoted with effect from 9th February, 1970. But his claim throughout has been that he should have been granted the privileges of that post with effect from 1st August, 1969. In other words, in substance, what he has been claiming was his promotion from the said latter date. But in this behalf the Tribunal had no jurisdiction, it view of the bar contained in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of the proviso to section 4 of Act IX of 1974 (Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act, 1974), which runs as under :- ---4. Appeals to Tribunals ------------------.: Provided that- (a)---------------------------------------------
(b) no appeal shall lie to a Tribunal against an order or decision of a departmental authority determining-
(i) the fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed to or hold particular post or to be promoted to a higher post or grade, or (ii)---------------------------------------------."
4. The petitioner, however, went on arguing that he was entitled to be given pro forma promotion with effect from 1st August, 1969. But in the face of the bar contained in the aforesaid provision, he was unable to show as to how the Tribunal could have helped him. Furthermore, he failed tar satisfy us as to what pro forma promotion actually meant, nor indeed was he able to refer to any rule which would entitle him to automatic promotion to the said post. We are, therefore satisfied that on merit the petitioner had no case before the Tribunal, therefore, the impugned order pasted by the Tribunal must be sustained, although for different reasons.
5. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.