Javed Iqbal, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 13.1.2010 passed by the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that "Dr. Shahnaz Wajid is a Surgeon (Gynae & Obstt) in the Federal Government Services Hospital, Islamabad. She is not being promoted to the next higher grade for the reason that she is a minor diploma holder. It is prayed by her in the main appeal that the respondents be directed to consider her for promotion with effect from 27.3.2009 when the post in BS-20 had become vacant treating her at par with Dr. Muhammad Zaman.
Alongwith the main appeal, she has filed an application for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents for making any promotion against the said vacant post. On that application a Bench of the Federal Service Tribunal comprising Mr. Zaheer Ahmed and Mr. Ayaz H.
Bokhari has passed an order on 20.6.2009 for maintenance of status quo." The appeal was finally- heard by the learned Federal Service Tribunal and dismissed vide judgment impugned hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Mr. M. Shoaib Shaheen, learned ASC entered appearance on behalf of petitioner and urged with vehemence that the consideration for promotion is a vested legal right which has been refused to the petitioner without any lawful justification causing serious miscarriage of justice. It is next contended that the judgment impugned is not in consonance with the relevant provisions as envisaged in the Appointment, Promotion and Transfer Rules, 1973 and the petitioner has been ignored in spite of having the requisite length of service on her credit for promotion. It is also argued that the provisions as enumerated in Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan have been violated. .
4. Mr. Mujtaba Haider Sherazi, learned Deputy Attorney General entered appearance on behalf of Federation and repudiated the view point as canvassed at bar by Mr. M. Shoaib Shaheen, learned ASC for the petitioner and supported the judgment impugned for the reasons enumerated therein.
It is contended that in absence of higher diploma for promotion, the question of promotion does not arise and no legal right of the petitioner whatsoever has been infringed. It is also pointed out that the provisions as enumerated in Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution cannot be invoked being not applicable in this case. It is further argued that it is a case of promotion simplicitor which cannot be granted due to lack of requisite qualification.
5. We have carefully examined the respective contentions as agitated on behalf of the parties, examined the entire record and perused the judgment impugned carefully. It is worth mentioning that higher diploma for promotion is a mandatory pre-requisite and no amendment has been made so far in the existing rules and recommendations to that effect, if made any, would have no substantial bearing on merits of the case till any amendment is made in the rules. The prescribed condition to get promotion in BS-20 is "higher diploma" and the petitioner is admittedly not a higher diploma holder. In so far as the provisions as enumerated in Article 25 of the Constitution is concerned that cannot be made application as no restriction whatsoever has been laid down by Article 25 of the Constitution qua reasonable classification. It is well settled by now that "equality clause does not prohibit different laws for those differently circumstanced provided a rational standard is laid down to guide the discretion of the relevant Authority to choose the appropriate law. A State may classify persons and objects for the purpose of legislation and make laws applicable only to persons or objects within a class. In fact almost all legislation involves some kind of classification whereby some people acquire rights or suffer disabilities which others do not.
Expression "equal protection of laws" does not place embargo On power of State" to classify either in adoption of police laws, or tax laws, or eminent domain laws" rather gives to state exercise of wide scope of discretion, of course, nullifying "what is without any reasonable basis". The State has the power of what is known as "classification" on the basis of rational distinctions relevant to the particular subject dealt with. Classification may be due to geographical situation or it may be based on territorial, economic, communal and other similar considerations. The Constitution itself contemplates passing of different laws for different provinces by their respective legislatures. The doctrine of reasonable classification is founded on the assumption that the State has to perform multifarious activities and deal with a vast number of problems. It, therefore, should have the power to make a reasonable classification of persons and things, to whom different treatment may be accorded, provided there is legitimate basis for such difference the State can make laws to attain special objects, and the administrative authorities may make classification, in pursuance of such laws. But the classification should not be arbitrary and capricious and must rest on reasonableness and have a fair nexus and a just relation with the need for which classification is made". Ziaullah Khan v. Government of Punjab (PLD 1989 Lah. 554), Akram Khan v. State (PLJ 1976 Lah.148), Fauji Foundation v, Shamimur Rehman (1983 SC 457), Fauji Foundation v, Shamim-ur- Rehman (NLR 1984 SCJ 403), LA Sharwani v. Government of Pakistan (1991 SCMR 1041), Aziz Begum v.
Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1990 SC 899), Aziz Begum v, Federation of Pakistan (NLR 1990 SD 682), Aziz Begum v. Fed, of Pak. (NLR 1990 SCJ 612), Balochistan Bar Association v. Government of Balochistan (PLD 1991 Quetta 7), Kathi Raning v. State of Saurashtra (AIR 1952 SC 123), Dhirendra v.
Supdt. and Remembr (AIR 1954 SC 424), Zain Noorani v. Secretary of National Assembly (PLD 1957 Kar. 1), Government of Punjab v. Naila Begum (PLD 1987 Lah.336), Government of Punjab Health Deptt. v. Naila Begum (PLJ 1987 Lah.460), Government of Punjab etc v. Mst. Naila Begum (KLR 1987 CC 593), Charanjit Lal v. Union of India (AIR 1951 SC 41), State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali (AIR 1952 SC 75), Rehman Shagoo v. State of J&K (1958 Cri L Jour 885), TK Abraham v. State of Tra.Co (AIR 1958 Ker.129), PLR 1957 (1) 743).
6. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the judgment impugned which being well based does not warrant interference. The petition being meritless is dismissed and leave refused.