HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J. --- The backdrop of this writ petition is that the petitioner joined WASA (LDA) as Sub-Engineer (BS-11) in the year 1972. After completion of 11 years' service, the petitioner was awarded BS-16 and that too after passing the departmental examination through order dated 10.12.1983. The petitioner was further promoted as Sub-Divisional Officer (BS-17) but on contract basis through order dated 18.3.1987 and on acting charge basis vide order dated 3.6.1987. ,
2. The petitioner was considered and regular promotion as S.D.O. (BS-17), the Departmental Promotion Committee recommended his name, he was regularly promoted on 16.3.2001 and later on he was awarded moveover (BS-18) on 14.5.2003.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is expecting his regular promotion to BS-18 in view of his eligibility but he is being deprived of the same on wrong premises and as such the respondents be directed to consider his promotion case for BS-18 in the next forthcoming meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that so far the facts of the case are concerned, those are undisputed, the petitioner is performing his duties without any complainant whatsoever, he was granted promotion to the rank of S.D.O. As per Rules but the Rules do not permit a diploma-holder for promotion as XEN (BS-18) and in support of his contention, learned counsel C.L.R. has relied on the case of Fida Hussain v. The Secretary, Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs Division, Islamabad and another (PLD 1995 SC 701) and submits that the petitioner has no case at all and his writ be dismissed.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The only point which is required to be resolved through this writ petition is that Whether there is any embargo in the Rules applicable to the WASA employees, whereby the department's stance could be substantiated that a diploma-holder cannot be promoted to the post of XEN (BS-18) and whether the law relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is applicable in the present case or not?
Pay Scale Name of Post Appointing AuthorityMinimum Qualification for Initial RecruitmentMethod of Recruitment Grade- 17 Assistant Director (Engineering)Managing DirectorBachelors Degree in Civil/ Mechanical/ Electrical Engineering from a recognized University80% by initial recruitment Deputation on from Government And 20% by promotion on The basis of seniority - Cum- Fitness From Amongst Sub-Engineers with at least 10Years service as sub Engineers if Suitable candidates are not Availabe Vacancies to be filled by Deputation from Government.
8. When confronted with this that whether the petitioner despite his status of diploma-holder, was promoted to the post of S.D.O. Against 20% quota as per regulations, the learned counsel for the respondents after consulting the record frankly conceded that the petitioner was of course promoted as S.D.O./Assistant. Director (Engineering) (BPS-17) as per quota promotees.
9. When the promotion of the petitioner as S.D.O.' admitted, then. We have to advert to the- regulation concerning promotion to Grade-18, which is reproduced as "Pay Scale Name of Post Appointing AuthorityMinimum Qualification for Initial RecruitmentMethod of Recruitment Grad e -18 Deputy Director (Engineering)Managing Director By promotion on the basis of seniority- cum-fitness from amongst Assistant Directors (Engineering) / Junior Maintenance Engineers S.D.O. With at least 5 years' service in rade 17."
10. A plain reading of Regulation/eligibility/criteria for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Engineering) BS-18) conveys a clear message that there is no condition of passing B.Sc.
(Engineering) or there is not a slightest bar/embargo on the promotion of any diploma-holder to the post of Deputy Director (Engineering)/Junior Maintenance Engineer/S.D.O. With at least 5 years' service in Grade 17. There is no denial by the respondents that the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Director (Engineering)/S.D.O. On regular basis in the year 2001 and since his promotion he has put more than seven years against the said post, which was a mandatory requirement for further promotion to the rank of Deputy Director (Engineering).
11. It is well-settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that "if a thing is required to be done in a particular manner it must be done in that manner only and not otherwise".
12. It is also settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan once for all, in the case reported as Accountant General, Sindh and others v. Ahmad All U. Qureshi and others (PLD 2008 SC 522) that "rule of harmonious interpretation is to be followed in case'of interpretation".
13. Even otherwise, in the present case plain reading of Regulations 1978 which are applicable to the petitioner's case do not require any interpretation. However, , it is held that the Regulations ibid do not make any bar on the departmental authorities to promote a diploma-holder to the post of Deputy Director (Engineering) provided he fulfills the conditions which are. Contained in the Regulations for his promotion to BS-18 as Deputy Director (Engineering), thus I hold that the petitioner is eligible for promotion to the rank of Deputy Director (Engineering) and as such the respondents are directed to place the petitioner's promotion case in the forthcoming meeting of the Departmental Promotion/Selection Committee, who `shall consider the same fairly, justly and without being influenced from any observation made by the departmental authorities previously.
Writ petition is allowed in the abOve terms.