' GHULAM RABBANI, J.---Petitioner, respondent No,5 (Nasarullah Larik) and respondent No,6 (Zafar Ali Qureshi) along with others, all of them Assistant Warden Fisheries (B-9), were promoted as Assistant Director, Fisheries (BS-17) on regular basis with immediate effect vide notification dated 23-8-1990 issued by Government of Sindh, Forest and Fisheries Department. At some later time, five of the above Assistant Directors, Fisheries were reverted to their original position on account of the facts that they were not qualified vide notification dated 1-4-1991 issued by Government of Sindh.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that on acquiring knowledge that respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were not holding the requisite educational qualification meant for the post of Assistant Director Fisheries; he preferred on 5-10-2006 a departmental appeal which remained dormant; therefore, petitioner approached the Sindh Service Tribunal by way of preferring an appeal, however, without considering the fact that the time for filing an appeal was computable from the date of knowledge, the same was dismissed being hopelessly time-barred. It is further contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner ranked senior to respondents Nos. 5 and 6 and induction of the latter as Assistant Director Fisheries affects his seniority and that it is likely that future promotion of the petitioner may be blocked.
3. Admitted fact is that the departmental appeal as well as the service appeal before the Tribunal were barred by time. We therefore, asked learned counsel to point out exactly as to from what.
Point of the time and through what source the petitioner came to know about the disqualification of the respondents Nos. 5 and 6. To our dismay, no precise answer was given. Learned counsel simply submitted that the petitioner could learn about ineligibility of the respondents for promotion only when degrees of their educational qualification and other papers came on record not pointing out as to on what date these documents formed the part of record. Be that as it may, during the course of his oral submission learned counsel was very candid to say that departmental authority considered the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 as qualified to hold the office of Assistant Director Fisheries. Admittedly, the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were promoted in the year 1990 whereas, petitioner challenged their eligibility in the year 2006 i,e, with an abnormal delay for which no comprehensible explanation is forthcoming.
4. After hearing as above, we do not find any lacuna facual or legal in the impugned judgment passed with jurisdiction, which calls for no interference. The petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. .