1. M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).----Mr. Muhammad Nasrullah Khan, appellant, is a lecturer in Grade 18 with about 19 years service. Two batches of Lecturers were promoted as Assistant Professors from Grade 17 to Grade 18 According to the appellant during 1977, a large number of lecturers junior to him were promoted to Grade 18. No reason was given for not promoting the appellant. An application was submitted on 25-8-1977 by the appellant enquiring the reasons for his non-promotion. The appellant was ultimately informed by a letter dated 24-10-1977 that he was ignored due to the unsatisfactory record of service. The appellant submitted an application dated 18-12-1977 in which he represente4 that his record has been satisfactory throughout the service and as such the decision was not justified. It was at this stage that the Director of Education, Lahore, communicated vide letter dated 28-2-78 to the appellant adverse remarks from the A. C.
2. Rs. Of the appellants for the years 1974, 1975 and 1976. The remarks are as under:- 1974.-Inclined to be outspoken and arrogant at times. Could be a more desirable colleague if he keeps the control his temper and subordinate his personal interests.
3. 1975.-An average teacher interested only in his class. Slightly whimsical and eccentric. Inclined to be blunt and arrogant. Tried to create administrative problems. The Directorate was moved for his transfer as his presence considered detrimental to the College Administration.
4. 1976.-An average teacher interested only in his class work. Slightly whimsical and accentric.
5. Inclined to be arrogant at times. Tried to create administrative problems. Apologised for his misbehaviour when his transfer case matured last year. Trying tug improve. Conduct under observation, The appellant submitted a representation dated 19-3-78. Another representa--tion was submitted on 27-7-79. The above-mentioned representations were rejected by the Secretary, Education vide his letter dated 17-9-1979. The appellant has filed this appeal before the Tribunal with the prayer that the adverse remarks may be expunged. We have heard the parties and seen the record of the appellant.
6. The following two main points have been urged on behalf of the appellant.
(i) The adverse remarks were communicated inv5, one lot. This is it violation of Instruction No. 34.
(ii) If adverse remarks are given for two successive years by the same Reporting Officer, then according to Instruction No. 41, the Officer should be transferred and placed under another Reporting Officer. This instruction has also been violated.
7. It is quite clear that the adverse remarks were communicated in one lot which is against Government instructions and thus the appellant had no opportunity to remedy his shortcomings.
8. Secondly, there is violation of; Instruction No. 41 and the Officer should have been placed under another reporting officer. As a matter of fact the Principal Prof. Khalid Masood Qureshi on 27-11-75 moved for the transfer of the appellant from Sheikhupura to some other place as the appellant was obstructing the administration of the College but this proposal never materialized. This, however, shows that things were not all right between the appellant and the Principal. The same Principal had, as a matter of fact, given the appellant a fairly good assessment for the years 1972 and 1973. It appears that difference arose somewhere in 1974. As the Instructions Nos. 34 and 41 have been violated and inference of ill-will can be drawn from the perusal of the A. C. Rs written by Prof. Khalid Masood Qureshi, the remarks for 1974, 1975 and 1976, are expunged and the appeal is accepted.