1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.-The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sind dated 7th August.
2. 1978. Dismissing constitutional Petition No, 1091 of 1979.
3. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Public Prosecutor! Assistant Government Pleader in 1955 by the Karachi Administration and the terms and conditions of his service were governed by the Sind Law Officers (Conditions of Service) Rules,1940.
4. ' He functioned in that capacity until April, 1976 when his services were dispensed with allegedly on political grounds. He, thereafter, represented to the Government for his re-instatement and succeeded as by Notification No, S. Gent : 5-2/78 dated 26th of January, 1968, he was appointed alongwith 13 others as Assistant Public Prosecutor/Assistant Government Pleader. On 2nd of April, 1978, the post of the District Public Prosecutor fell vacant as its incumbent was appointed as Assistant Advocate-General. The petitioner, thereafter, made representations for his promotion to that post on the premise that he was the senior most Assistant Public Prosecutor and eligible for promotion in accordance with rule 3-B (i) of the Rules but the Government treated him as a fresh appointee and promoted respondent No, 2 to that post on 17th of May 1978. In 1977, before hi re- instatement, he also filed a suit for declaration that his services were illegally terminated and for loss of remuneration arising from his illegal termination.
5. ' Being aggrieved he filed the aforementioned constitution petition in which he challenged the stand of the Government that he was a fresh appointee and also the: promotion of respondent No, 2 to the post of District Public Prosecutor. The High Court held that Rule 3-B (i) gave discretion to the Government to select the incumbent for promotion to that post irrespective of his seniority and, therefore, it was inapt to rely on the criterion of seniority. However, the High Court did not go into the question as to whether he was re-instated or appointed afresh pursuant to the Notification.
6. In seeking leave to appeal the petitioner again pressed into service the plea that he was re- instated but a reading of the Notification would make it obvious that it was not so as the word "appoint" had been used which denote, the character of his appointment as a fresh appointment from the date of the Notification. Therefore, he could not lay a claim to his promotion to the post of District Public Prosecutor on the basis of his seniority. We also agree with the High Court that the Rule gives to the Government the discretion to select any one for promotion to the post of the District Public Prosecutor having regard to its language which does not make seniority a pivotal consideration but also merit as well.
7. ' There is, therefore, no substance in this petition which is hereby dismissed.