' RIAZ AHMED KHAN, J.--- Petitioners in the instant petition were performing duties in different departments. They were transferred by deputation under section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 by the Establishment Division and posted as Section Officers. In the year 2008 about 29 officers were inducted/absorbed in the Office Management Group. The grievance of the petitioners is that the officers who had been inducted/absorbed in the Office Management Group as Section Officers were junior to them and they were entitled to be inducted/absorbed in the Office Management Group.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
3. According to Para No,5 of parawise comments filed on behalf of Establishment. Division, the Office Management Group Constitution, 2/3rd posts of Section Officers are filled directly through C.S.S. Examination and 1/3rd posts are filled by promotion of the departmental eligible candidates through a promotional examination to be conducted by F.P.S.C.; whereas 10% of the posts are reserved for induction/ appointment by transfer of Civil Servants belonging to other occupational groups, services, cadres and the Provincial Governments on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee and with the approval of competent authority by obtaining consent of the Ministry/Division/Provincial Government and the officer concerned before making such appointments.
4. In the instant case, the contention of the respondent as stated in the parawise comments is that in order to overcome the shortage of Section Officers, a proposal soliciting approval of the competent authority was submitted. The proposal was that BS-17 officers borrowed from other occupational groups, services, cadres and the Provincial Governments, serving as Section Officers on deputation or under section 10 of Civil Servants Act, 1973 be appointed through transfer in O,M.G.
Against the 2/3rd share of direct recruitment in BS-17 in the public interest. Consequent upon approval of the competent authority, a panel of 74 officers irrespective of their seniority was prepared after obtaining required information from their parent departments and officers concerned. The Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 21-8-2008, considered the said panel and recommended 37 officers for induction/appointment by transfer as Section Officers. The present petitioners were not found eligible for appointments by the Departmental Promotion Committee and as a result they, were not appointed.
5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that since 10% quota is reserved for appointments from other occupational groups, cadres and since there is still shortage of officers for the Office Management Group, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be appointed as Section Officers.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is not correct for the reasons that appointment on a particular post cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as no person has vested right to be appointed against a particular post. In addition to that the petitioners' claim that they were ignored against other persons, who have been appointed also, would not create the right for the petitioners. In fact, the question is not of absorption; rather it is appointment by transfer. The Departmental Promotion Committee or the competent authority has all rights to consider persons for appointment and the High Court cannot substitute its own opinion for the appointing authority.
Since the case of the petitioners was considered by Departmental Promotion Committee but they were not eligible to be appointed, so the High Court cannot compel the respondent to appoint the petitioners on the posts of their choice. Needless to mention, that the petitioner No,1 has already been retired and in his case the writ has become infructuous.
7. In the above said circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.