' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- The respondent had earned his promotion in due course as a result of the recommendation made by the Departmental Promotion Committee. It was somehow thought fit by the Chairman of the Punjab Workers Welfare Board/ Secretary to the Government of Punjab that this promotion, though against an existing vacancy, would be only for six months extendable for a further period of six months and further that during this period he shall remain on special report to evaluate his performance. This was so ordered on 31-5-1997. On 8-6-1998, the respondent was, however, reverted to the post of an Assistant allegedly on account of the evaluation of the respondent's performance.
2. This order dated 8-6-1998 is bad for more than one reasons. Firstly, because it never said that the order had been passed by the competent authority. Secondly, because this order had been passed without any notice to the respondent and without mentioning any reason which had weighed in the alleged evaluation of the respondent's performance and for which reason his performance had allegedly fallen short of the required standards. It is also open to some doubt whether the reversion of the respondent to a lower post, as commanded by the impugned order, could have been ordered without undertaking the requisite proceedings as reversion to a lower post was a punishment provided for misconduct.
3. Having thus examined all aspects of the matter, we find that no exception could be taken to the impugned order of the learned High Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused.
(Sd.) Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, J.
' CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.--- Since an important legal issue arose in this case, I have decided to write a separate judgment and I hereby record the same herewith.
2. The Chairman/petitioner of the PP&W Board/Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Labour Department had promoted respondent on the recommendations of Department Selection Committee to Selection Grade BS-16 against an existing vacancy for a period of six months w,e,f, 27-5-1997 extendable for further six months with further condition that the respondent would remain on special report during this period to A evaluate his performance vide order, dated 31-5- 1997. Subsequently, petitioner reverted the respondent from the post of Superintendent to Assistant vide order, dated 8-6-1998. Respondent being aggrieved filed Constitution Petition No,237 of 2006 which was accepted vides judgment, dated 6-6-2006. Petitioner being aggrieved filed I.C.A. Which was also dismissed by the learned High Court vide impugned judgment, dated 5-7-2006. Hence the present petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent was promoted by the petitioners as Superintendent on the recommendation of DPC on temporary basis with certain conditions. He further maintains that the proper procedure was adopted and after issuing notice to the respondent and completing other legal formalities, the petitioner had reverted the respondent to the post of Assistant from the post of Superintendent vide order, dated 8-6-1998. Both the Courts below erred in law to accept the constitution petition of the respondent.
4. I have given my due consideration to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record . It is better and appropriate to reproduce the order of promotion, order of reversion, operative part of the judgment in the constitution petition and operative part of the judgment in the I.C.A. To resolve the controversy between the parties: ' Order of promotion order dated 31-5-1997 "Consequent upon the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the Chairman of the PP&W Board/ Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Labour Department, is pleased to promote Mr. Mehr Din, Selection Grade Assistant (BS-15) of the Board as Superintendent (BS-16) against an existing vacancy, for a period of six months, with effect from 27-5-1997, extendable for further six months.
' He will remain on special report during this period to evaluate his performance."
' Order of revision dated 8-6-1998 "On the basis of evaluation of performance, Mr. Mehr Din, Superintendent, Punjab Province Workers Welfare Board, is hereby reverted to the post of Assistant, with immediate effect. "
' Operative part of judgment in constitution petition "Nothing has been brought on the record to show that the DPC imposed any such condition. The Deputy Secretary (Admn.) held an inquiry and he came to the conclusion as follows:- ' He has a case for promotion as Superintendent as his reversion to the lower post was ab initio void being violative of rule and policy.'
' The then Chairman approved the recommendations of the Deputy Secretary (Admn.). In view of the above the respondent is directed to implement the order of the Chairman dated 27-12-2001 within one month. With this direction this petition stands disposed of."
' Operative part of judgment in ICA "The other objection raised is that respondent was promoted as Superintendent on the recommendation of DPC, but on temporary basis. The impugned order specifically notes that nothing was brought on record to show that the DPC imposed any condition to such effect on the promotion of the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant has now sought to produce documents, not shown to the learned Single Judge in order to fortify his contention. Such a belated plea being taken up in the appeal cannot be allowed now. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed in limine."
5. It is an admitted fact that the respondent was promoted on the recommendation of DPC by the petitioners with certain conditions as evident from order, dated 31st May, 1997 reproduced hereinabove. I am of the view that in the first place, the competent authority could not impose the condition on trial basis for one year on Mehar Din's promotion as the petitioners fail to show any rule on the basis of which the petitioners cater for such an extraordinary condition specially when the DPC had not imposed such condition as observed by the two Courts below. It is an admitted fact that the case of the respondent was not even considered well in time within the prescribed period mentioned in the order dated 31-5-1997 meaning thereby the case of the respondent was not considered by the competent authority within the prescribed period fixed in the aforesaid order, dated 31-5-1997. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent was promoted against a clear-cut existing vacancy. The condition of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent was promoted temporarily or on probation has no force coupled with the fact even if he was to be considered to be on probation under the rules he would stand confirmed in his promotion on expiry of the period prescribed in the order, dated 31-5-1997 which had expired on 31-5-1998 whereas the petitioner had reverted him on 8-6-1998. It is a settled law that the parties are bound by their pleadings as law laid down by this Court in Mst. Murad Begum's case PLD 1974 SC 322. The petitioners had not produced all the relevant documents before the learned Single Judge, therefore, learned Division Bench was justified not to consider the said documents. The judgment of Division Bench is in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in the following judgments:-
(i) Ghulam Muhammad's case PLD 1983 SC 68; (ii) Manzoor Khan's case 1991 CLC No te 370.
' The learned High Court had exercised jurisdiction with cogent reasons. Substantial justice has been done through impugned judgment, therefore, I agree with my learned brother that it is not a fit case in which leave is to be granted. It is a settled law that when the basic order to the extent or condition is without lawful authority then the superstructure shall have to fall on the ground automatically. It is also an admitted fact that both the Courts below have exercised discretion in favour of the respondent with cogent reasons. This Court does not, normally, interfere in the concurrent conclusions arrived at by the Courts below while exercising power under Article 185(3) of the Constitution as the law laid down by this Court in Malik Muhammad Ishaque's case PLD 1977 SC 109.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, the petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.
Leave refused.