1. ' ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, J.--- By this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the petitioner seeks his promotion from O.G.III to O.G.II.
2. ' The facts leading to file the present petition in brief are that the petitioner joined the services of respondent No,2 i.e, Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan in the year 1984 and rendered satisfactory service to the bank which resulted in his timely promotion and was lastly promoted as 0.G.-III vide letter dated 13-4-2000. After promotion to Grade-III, the petitioner passed M.B.A. And got degree of M.B.A. On 10-12-2001 and after obtaining the degree of M.B.A., the petitioner started agitating before the respondent No,2 for his promotion from C.G.III to O.G.II on the basis of M.B.A.
3. Degree. The request of the petitioner was not considered which constrained him to file C.P. No,2067 of 2008 at Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which was disposed of vide order, dated 6-5-2008 thereby directing the respondent No,2 to dispose of the appeal/representation of the petitioner positively within six weeks of the receipt of the copy of order. The petitioner filed another C.P.
4. Bearing No,D-1261 of 2008 before this Court which was disposed of by the learned D.B. On 9-9-2008 keeping in view the observations made by Lahore High Court thereby directing the respondent No,2 to dispose of the appeal/representation of the petitioner within six weeks, with further directions to the respondent No,2 to convene the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee and consider the case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the rules and pass appropriate order within three weeks from the date of this order. The petitioner still filed another petition vide C.P. No,D-1522 of 2008 wherein the disposal of C.P. No,1261 of 2008 was concealed as such vide order of this Court, dated 21-10-2008, the C.P. No,1522 of 2008 was withdrawn with the permission to file afresh, if so advised. It is also the case of the petitioner that the case of the petitioner was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee by respondent No,2 who did not find the petitioner fit or qualified to the next promotion, hence the present petition.
5. ' Notice of the petition has been served on respondents and respondent No,2 filed their objections, inter alia, challenging the maintainability of the petition and have stated that the respondent-Bank has been converted into public limited company under the provisions of Banking Companies Ordinance, 1984, therefore, the relationship in between the petitioner and the respondent-Bank is that of master and servant and the petitioner could not invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. It is further averred in the comments that the track record of the petitioner was not good and his ACRs were also not good and solely the degree of M.B.A. Or seniority is not criteria to promote the officer in his next grade and the case of the petitioner was placed before the D.P.C. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court and the Committee did not find him fit for the promotion, therefore, his request could not be acceded by the respondents.
6. ' We have heard the petitioner in person, Mr. Umer Hayat Sandhu, learned D.A.-G. For respondent No,1 and. Mr. M.S. Qureshi, Advocate for respondent No,2.
7. ' The petitioner vehemently contended that he possesses degree of M.B,A. Which is, a requirement of policy of the promotion in the next grade and he has also served the respondents for more than five years as officer Grade-III, as such his case was matured for the purpose of promotion in the next higher grade and the respondent No,2 malafidely denying his right of promotion which vested in him after acquiring the degree of M.B.A. In support of his contention he has relied upon the case of Walayat Ali Mir v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation reported in 1995 SCMR 650, the case of Manthar Ali M. Jatoi v. Government of Sindh reported in 1988 PLC (C.S.) 344, the case of Syed Muhammad Rafique Shah v. Government of Punjab reported in 2008 PLC (C.S.) 880, the case of State of Mysore v. B. Basavalingappa reported in AIR 1987 SC 411. The case of Salman Adil Siddiqui and others v. Province of Sindh and others reported in 2008 PLC (C.S.) 220, the case of Fida Muhammad v. Government of N.-W.F.P. And others reported in 1999 PLC (C.S.) 180, the case of Saeeduddin v. Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P. Reported in 1990 CLC 8 and the case of Javaid Hussain Qureshi v. Finance Department, Government of Punjab reported in 2004 PLC (C.S.) 586.
8. ' Mr. M.S. Qureshi, learned counsel for respondent No,2 vehemently contended that the respondent- Bank has been converted into a private limited company by promulgation of Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan (Reorganization and Conversion) Ordinance, 2007, hereinafter shall be referred to as "Ordinance 2007", whereby bank has been privatized and has been converted into public limited company and by virtue of section 6 of the Ordinance, 2007 the services of the permanent employees or officers have been safeguarded, therefore, constitutional petition against the private companies is not maintainable. In support of his contention he has relied upon the case of Habib Bank Limited v. Syed Zia-ul-Haq Kazmi reported in 1998 SCMR 60. He further contended that the track record of the petitioner was not good and that as per promotion policy for officers/executives, besides the evaluation of ACRs, seniority and performance report, the suitability for promotion of the eligible candidate on prescribed criteria was necessary and the case of the petitioner was considered by D.P.C. Who did not find him fit for promotion, therefore, he was not eligible to promotion in the next higher grade.
9. ' Mr. Umer Hayat Sandhu, learned D.A.-G. Adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent No,2.
10. ' We have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and have gone through the material available before us as well as relevant law on the subject.
11. Before examining the eligibility of the petitioner for promotion in the next higher grade, it would be appropriate to consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent No,2 regarding maintainability of the petition on the ground that IDBP has been privatized and has been converted into public limited company thereby the petition against the private company is not maintainable. The fact of conversion of the respondent-Bank into a public limited company has not been controverted by the petitioner. The respondent No,2 in his parawise comments has stated that the status of the respondent No,2- Bank is scheduled to be privatized and notification in this regard has also been issued namely the Ordinance, 2007 which has become effective from 29-7- 2007. The said averments made by the respondent No,2 have also not been disputed by the petitioner. The respondent No,2 has also produced a copy of gazette certification dated 17-9-2007 by which Ordinance, 2007 has been promulgated and by virtue of section 1(3) of Ordinance, 2007, this Ordinance will deem to have effect from 29th July, 2007 and by virtue of section 3 of the Ordinance, 2007 the bank has been converted into a company. Section 3 of the Ordinance, 2007 is reproduced herein below for the sake of convenience:--- Establishment of the Company etc.--- (1) As soon as may be, after the commencement of this Ordinance, the Federal Government shall establish a company to be known as the Industrial Development Bank Limited, limited by shares and cause it to be incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 (XLVII of 1984) with the principal object of taking over the business, functions, contracts, proceedings, undertakings, assets and liabilities I.D.B.P."
12. ' A perusal of the section 3, (ibid), shows that the status of the bank has been converted into a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, since 29th July, 2007, as such the status of the respondent No,2 has been considerably changed from the status of the banking schedule by the Government into a public limited company. The services of the permanent employees and officers of the respondent No,2 have also been transferred and become the employees of the company on the effective date of 29th July, 2007 on the same terms and conditions as were applicable to them before the effective date, as such, status of the employees of respondents-Bank has also been changed. Therefore, there is no cavil to the proposition that the status of the respondent-Bank and its employees has completely been changed and by conversion of the bank into public limited company, it has become public limited company and the petition against the public limited company or private person is not maintainable. In the. Case of H.B.L. (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to observe that the effect of the application of master and servant, the rule is that an employee of the corporation in the absence of violation of law or any statutory rule cannot press into service constitutional jurisdiction or civil jurisdiction for seeking relief of reinstatement in service, his remedy for wrongful dismissal is to claim damages. The observation made by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of H.B.L. (supra) shows that after conversion into a corporation, the status of the employees also converted towards to that of master and servant and he cannot enforce his right by invoking constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. III the present case, admittedly the respondent-Bank has been converted into a public limited company under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and the status of the respondent-Bank and its employees completely been changed, therefore, in our opinion, the petition against the corporation or the private parties is not maintainable.
13. The case of the petitioner that he has not been promoted though he has qualified for his promotion after acquiring the degree of M.B.A. Has also not impressed us for the reason that promotion policy for officers/executives of the respondent-Bank provides the consideration of good ACRs and eligibility of the candidates for promotion on the basis of their seniority as well as assessment of suitability for the promotion of eligible candidate on prescribed criteria including his interview. The case of the petitioner is that he acquired the degree of M.B.A. On 10-12-2001, therefore he qualified for promotion in the next higher grade but as stated above, the case of the petitioner under the orders of this Court was admittedly placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee and at the time of consideration of the petitioner for promotion the Committee observed that there was no provision in the banks promotion policy to promote a person to a higher grade on acquiring M.B.A. Degree. The Committee further observed that the last three years' ACRs of the petitioner were perused including his performance and his performance remained below average and he secured 30 marks out of 80 marks in assessme nt based on qualification/experience and performance as per evaluation criteria, therefore, the-Committee did not recommend him for promotion from O.G.III to O.G.II.
14. The unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner has been well-worded by respondent No,2 in its comments and has also produced three years ACRs which were placed before the Committee, and we also noted that performance of the petitioner was not satisfactorily recorded by his superiors in his ACRs, The claim of the petitioner that the head of the branch where he posted had also recommended him for the next promotion because of his satisfactory performance but the opinion of the Manager of the branch where the petitioner was posted has not been prescribed in the banks promotion policy, as criteria for promotion of the candidate in the next higher grade. The grievance, of the petitioner was that he has not been considered for promotion into next higher grade in spite of his persistent requests whereupon this Court vide order, dated 9-9-2008 had directed to convene a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee and the case of petitioner may be considered strictly in accordance with the rules of the respondent No,2, as such, a special meeting of D.P.C. Was convened and the matter of the petitioner was considered and the Committee did not find him fit for promotion on the basis of his track record.
15. ' The case-law relied upon by the petitioner speaks about the promotion of the candidates, in case, if the case of other similar candidates have been considered and the case of petitioner was not considered, it was observed that there was discrimination by the employer in promotion of the petitioner, but the present case is entirely on different footings from the case-law relied upon by the petitioner, as such, in our opinion, the case of the petitioner is not supported by the case-law relied upon by him.
16. ' For the aforesaid reasons and circumstances, we are of the opinion that after privatization of IDBP, it has been converted into public limited company and the status of the company has been covered under the provisions of Companies Ordinance, 1984, as such, petition having no merit, is hereby dismissed in limine.