Appellant, through filing Writ Petition No, 9637 of 2005, has voiced his grievance, against the promotion of Respondent No, 4, as Provincial Director, Local Fund Audit. Appellant claimed that according to relevant Rules, he, being the Divisional Director, was entitled 'to be posted as Director Local Fund Audit. The selection of Respondent No, 4 was made on the recommendation of Secretary Finance and the appellant was made victim of prejudice of Secretary Finance. Learned Judge in chamber, while passing impugned order, has observed that case of Respondent No, 4, was considered by Provincial Selection Board, comprising of panel of seven High Officials and allegation of influence of Secretary Finance or his recommendations has no merit. Learned Judge in chamber found other grounds, as not legally tenable and dismissed the petition.
2. Appellant bus now assailed in this Intra Court Appeal, order of the dismissal of his petition, on the grounds that as per Local Fund Audit Rules, 1981, the post of Provincial Director, Local Fund Audit, can be filed by promotion, on the basis of selection on merits from the persons, holding post of Divisional Director with 12 years experience in Grade-17 or above. Respondent No, 4, being Deputy Secretary, is not eligible to compete for the post. It was argued that only a person holding post in the same functional, must be appointed and respondents have ignored instruction i,e, Letter No, SOR-III-1-14/75(B), dated 05.10.1985. Learned counsel has contended that the appellant being senior most eligible officer, fulfilled the criterion of fitness and eligibility, but was ignored. Learned counsel has submitted with vehemence that Voard which made the impugned selection, was not complete. Disciplinary proceedings were pending against Respondent No, 4 and his 12 ACRs were not available, yet he was appointed. Learned counsel, in support of his contentions, has referred to the cases of "Dr. Mujahid Ali Mansoori and others Vs University of the Punjab and others" (2005 PLC
(CS) 694), 'Muhammad Liquat Munir Rao vs. Shamas Uddin and others" (2004 PLC (CS) 1328) and "NWFP through Chief Secretary and another vs. Dr. Irfan Meer and others" (1996 NLR Service 56).
3. Learned Law Officer, on the other hand, stood behind the impugned order and supported it with full vehemence. Learned counsel for Respondent No, 4, has controverted the assertions of the appellant. He has submitted that the appellant has asserted in his petition that he had filed departmental appeal and representation, but the same were not replied. It is contended that remedy of departmental appeal has been availed therefore ICA is not competent under Section 3(2) of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. Learned counsel has submitted that Respondent No, 4, joined Local fund Audit on 26.08.1984 and completed requisite trainings. It was vehemently denied that 12 ACRs of Respondent No, 4, are not available. He has submitted that no inquiry or disciplinary proceedings are pending against Respondent No,
4. According to Respondent No, 4, petitioner was caught red handed, while receiving illegal gratification. Learned counsel, in support of his contentions has referred to the cases of Dr. Aziz-ur-Rehman Meo us. Govt. of Sindh and another"
(2004 PLC (CS) 1142), 'Muhammad Yousaf Alvi, Deputy Post Master General, Multan vs. Federation of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Islamabad and 8 others" (2005 PLC (CS) 607), "Syed Asif Akhtar Hashmi vs. Malik Muhammad Riaz and 3 others" (PLD 2008 Lah. 235) and "Chairman Minimum Wage Board and another vs. Fayyaz Khan Khattak" (1999 SCMR 1004).
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and record perused.
5. Appellant lias urged various grounds in this appeal, which were not raised before learned Single Judge in Chambers. Such points cannot be considered, being tactual and agitated for the first time in appeal, but for our satisfaction, we summoned the relevant record and perused the same with the able assistance of Farhat Murtaza Khan. Deputy Secretary. We have found that most of the allegations of the appellant, were incorrect. Respondent No, 4 underwent practical training in the Divisional Directorate 'and Municipal Corporation, Multan from 14.01.1985 to 25.01.1985 and his, achievement was found satisfactory. His ACRs were available and were signed by the reporting officer. Some of them are unsigned by the countersigning officers i,e, pertaining to the period from 26.08.1984 to 26.12.1984, 01.10.1995 to 31.12.1995, 05.07.1993 to 31.12.1998 and 01.01.2000 to 03.11.2000. Respondent No, 4 has no role to play in respect of his incomplete ACRs, as it is the responsibility of the Department to get ACRs completed. The record of a civil servant is to be maintained properly by the department. The apex Court, in an unreported case titled "Secretary Revenue Division etc. vs. Muhammad Saleem"
(Civil Appeal No, 1986 of 2001), has held that the law has provided use it is the duty of the Departmental to get prepared PERs of an officer, so that same could be used for other prescribed purposes and at the time of promotion of an official.
6. Provincial Selection Board has examined the case of the appointment of Respondent No, 4, adhering to the rules and procedure. The board has been validly constituted and the impugned selection was made, with prescribed quorum. The selection/appointment of Respondent No, 4, at this stage, cannot be set at naught, for non compliance of rules, which are regulatory/directory.
7. For the foregoing, this appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.