' SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.--- Muhammad Safdar Rana has filed this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 23-5-2007 whereby Appeal No,101 of 2007 brought by him was dismissed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that petitioner joined the Education Department as S.S.T. On 8-9-1955 and was thereafter promoted as Headmaster and further promoted as Principal. He filed representation before competent Authority on 3-2-1994 for his ante-dated promotion (to BS-19 and then to BS-20 w,e,f, 12-12.1990) instead of 2-2-1994 but the same was not decided, therefore, he was constrained to file Appeal No,710 of 1994 before Punjab Service Tribunal. His appeal was allowed on 13-12-1997 but the judgment was not finally implemented. The petitioner filed writ petition for its implementation but during pendency of the same, Department prepared working papers of the petitioner for his ante-dated promotion for grant of promotion to BS-19 from 12-12-1990 hence writ petition was disposed of on 16-5-2006 and direction was issued to respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of two months. However, on 5-8-2006 competent authority declined to implement judgment, dated 13-12-1997 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal. The petitioner filed appeal there against which was dismissed vide judgment, dated 23-5-2007 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal.
Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3.We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record. As mentioned above the case of petitioner is that he was entitled to promotion to BS-19 and then to BS-20 w,e,f, 12-12-1990. However, learned Additional Advocate-General Punjab submits that petitioner was at Serial No,57 of the seniority list whereas only 56 posts were available on the said date i,e, 12-12-1990. Further submits that senior employees were promoted before the petitioner and that he had retired in the year 1994. Admittedly petitioner has never challenged his seniority list. As stated earlier at the relevant time there was no justification (entitlement) for his promotion.
So respondent could not promote him before the Officers who were senior to him. As such claim of petitioner is baseless. We have gone through the judgment, dated 23-5-2007 and find that Service Tribunal has decided the appeal brought by petitioner after appraisal of entire material available on record. Para.6 of the impugned judgment reads as under:-- "(6) Record perused. Arguments of the counsel heard. The appellant in the first instance had been given the ante-dated promotion in BS-19 w,e,f, 2-2-1994. The directions of Punjab Service Tribunal to the extent of promotion in BS-19 w,e,f, 12-12-1990 have already been fulfilled vide Notification No, SO(S-VI)5-71/ 2000, dated 7-7-2004. The grievance of the appellant upto extent of BS-19 have been settled by the departmental authorities. As per actual strength of posts in the Education Department under 4-Tier structure formula, the departmental authorities had prepared the seniority list as on 12-12-1990 of General Cadre and Comprehensive Cadre of BS-18 officers in the light of Punjab Education Department Recruitment Rules, 1987 amended up to 5-4-1989. The name of appellant stands at Serial No,57 in the said seniority list whereas 56 posts of BS-20 were available on 12-12-1990 on the basis of 4-Tire Formula. The department after fulfilling legal requirements will first promote the officers who are senior to appellant up to Serial No,56. Since the name of appellant stands at serial No,57, he will not be considered for BS-20. The counsel for appellant has not objected about number of vacancies and seniority No, of appellant. Since the appellant stand's at serial No,57, no additional vacancy of BS-20 would be available. The claim of appellant is not established. The appeal is dismissed. However, the departmental authorities can consider the case of the appellant for award of BS-20 on compassionate ground after his seniors have been awarded the BS-20."
4. It is a well-reasoned judgment. Even otherwise, as stated earlier, keeping in view seniority list, it was not a fit case for promotion of the petitioner. As mentioned above petitioner had retired from service in 1994. Moreover, no substantial question of law of public importance is B involved in this petition. So in the circumstances of the case impugned judgment is just and proper and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment so as to warrant interference by this Court. As such petition lacking in merit is dismissed and .