' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 4-10-2006 passed by Sindh Service Tribunal allowing respondent's service appeal against departmental order dated 24-9-2004 whereby his permanent absorption/appointment by transfer as Constable in Anti-Corruption Establishment made by the competent authority vide order dated 10-4-2004 by petitioner No,2 i.e, Director Anti-Corruption Establishment Sindh was withdrawn.
2. We have heard learned Additional Advocate-General who vehemently agitated that the absorption/appointment of the respondent was not made through Departmental, Promotion Committee but he has not been able to point out any provision or rule of service governing the service of the respondent that the case of appointment of the respondent required approval/selection by the Departmental Promotion Committee. It is not disputed that the respondent was appointed by transfer from Police Department to Anti-Corruption Establishment in BS-5 which was within the competence of petitioner No,2 under the Service Rules of 1991. In the absence of any violation of statutory rules, or any exercise of authority beyond the power and jurisdiction of petitioner No,2, it is difficult to hold that petitioner No,2 acted illegally or without jurisdiction. Learned Law Officer has not been able to point out if the approval of petitioner No,1 was required for absorption of a member of' service in BS-5. Indeed the Tribunal has elaborately discussed the questions of fact agitated in the appeal and defended by the petitioners.
3. In our considered opinion no substantial question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the Constitution is made out for grant of leave which is accordingly refused and petition dismissed.