' SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.--- The case of the respondent as set out in grievance petition was that respondent was appointed as Foreman and according to him, he was entitled to promotion as Assistant Works Manager (AWM) under the Staff Promotion Rule, 1959. Appellant was given charge of AWM on work charge basis. The employees who were junior to him were promoted as AWM but the respondent was neither considered for promotion, nor reasons for his supersession were communicated to him. Post of AWM fell vacant on resignation of Muhammad Afzal Awan.
Respondent was not appointed against the vacancy which resulted into issuance of grievance notice, followed by the grievance petition before Labour Court. Petition was contested by the appellant, who raised various preliminary objections, including maintainability of petition and of limitation. Learned Court recorded evidence of the parties and through impugned order, dated 20- 3-1998 accepted the grievance petition, hence this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that respondent was not matriculate and for that reason he was not considered for promotion. Learned counsel has referred to Exh.P.2/1-15 i,e, Staff Promotion Rules, 1976 which provide the eligibility for promotion that a Foreman must possess educational qualification of matriculation, besides two years' experience as Foreman in PRTC respondent was not qualified to be promoted as he was lacking the educational qualification according to rules, therefore, he was not promoted. Learned counsel in order to meet the objection of respondent that junior to him despite being not matriculate were promoted, has submitted that Khalid Toheed at Serial No,26, Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din at Serial No,46 were promoted under the direction of the Court. Learned counsel has lastly submitted that the learned Labour Court has accepted the grievance petition on the ground that there is no logic to deny promotion to the respondent, if junior to him, who were also under matric, were promoted. It was contended that respondent could only be granted legal right on the basis of law and not on logic. A person who is not eligible for a post, cannot be appointed against that post.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent, has fully supported the impugned order. He has contended that it is admitted fact that the petitioner was senior most and was_ directly appointed as Foreman. Junior to him, placed in identical situation were promoted. There is no reason or justification to accord him promotion, exactly in the manner as other employees were promoted.
Learned counsel has referred to Exh.P.3 in view whereof, as demand No,6, 100% of posts of subordinate cadre were to be filled through promotion. Resorting to direct recruitment, was permissible only on non-availability of suitable candidates. Reference was made to Exh.P.4 i,e, the settlement for the year 1984 wherein it was settled that instead of direct recruitment on the post, eligible and senior employees will be given promotions. After referring to Exh.P.3 and Exh.P.4, it was contended that by virtue of Standing Order 4 of the Ordinance, 1968 the appellants were bound to accommodate and promote the respondent.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. It is admitted by the parties that respondent was senior most employee in his cadre. He was under-matric and basic qualification for promotion to AWM, as per PRTS, Recruitment of staff and Promotion Rules, 1976, was matric. There is no denial of the fact that respondent A was given current charge of AWM and junior to him were promoted despite the fact that they were not matriculate. The question arises that can a person be appointed against a post for which he was not qualified as per rules. Respondent being under-matric was not possessed of basic education qualification. Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Dr. Muhammad Hussain v.
Principal Ayub Medical College and another PLD 2003 SC 143 has enunciated the principle of law that appointment to a particular post cannot be made in violation of the prevalent rules and regulations.
6. Reverting to the second question that respondent is justified in claiming promotion on the ground that junior to him, who were not eligible were promoted. Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Chandrigarh Administration v. Jagit Singh AIR 1995 SC 705 has settled principle of law that two wrongs do not make a right. Relevant portion of justice is reproduced as under:-- "Generally speaking, the mere fact that the respondent-Authority has passed a particular order in the case of another person similarly situated can never be the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. The order in favour of the other person might be legal and valid or it might not be. That has to be investigated first before it can be directed to be followed in the case of the petitioner. If the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of his case, its obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent-Authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order."
7. For the foregoing, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order of the learned Labour Court is set aside, with the result that B grievance petition filed by the respondent is dismissed with no order as to costs.