' IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, C.J.--- This Intra Court Appeal is directed against the order dated 13- 6-2011, whereby the learned Single Judge in Chamber accepted Writ Petition No,712 of 2007 filed by respondent No, 1.
2. Facts of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are that respondent No,1 was working as Deputy Manager in the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan. During departmental promotion, he was ignored and junior to him was promoted. Feeling dissatisfied, respondent No,1 preferred constitutional petition. The learned Single Judge in Chamber vide the impugned order dated 13-6-2011 accepted the same and appellant was directed to promote respondent No,1 as Manager from the date when his junior (respondent No,1 in writ petition) was promoted. Hence, this Intra Court Appeal.
3. In support of appeal, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge in Chamber has not considered the real facts in its true perspective and law on the subject. Under the law where the promotion is based on seniority cum fitness, it is the competent authority who can better ascertain the fitness of an employee. Respondent No,1 was considered for promotion by the Board but he was not found fit for promotion. It is added that while considering for promotion, respondent No,1 obtained 72.25 marks; whereas Saleem A. Khalid obtained 75.26 marks. It is further contended that in the State Life Employees (Service), Regulation' 1973, there is no regulation regarding promotion and under Article No,49 of the Life Insurance (Nationalization) Order, 1972 only rules and regulations are to be approved from Federal Government and no where in Article 49 ibid it is being propounded that criteria formulated by the appellant on the basis of which the promotion is made is to be got approved by the Federal Government, therefore, the observation of the learned Single Judge in Chamber in this regard is against the law on the subject, which cannot sustain. It was the sole discretion of competent authority to promote an employee after considering all aspects including ACRs etc. Therefore, the appellant was rightly ignored. It is next contended that respondent No,1 has already been promoted in the year 2008.
4. Conversely, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,1 while supporting the impugned order states that the criteria for promotion was not got approved from Government, which was mandatory, so all the proceedings were illegal and against the law; that criteria for promotion i,e, enhanced qualification was amended to give benefit to some blue eyed chaps, which is not permissible under the law and principle of natural justice; that respondent No,1 had unblemished career and there was no adverse remarks in his ACRs, but even then he was ignored and thus the constitutional petition of respondent No,1 was rightly accepted by the learned Single Judge in Chamber.
5. Arguments heard, and record perused.
6. The learned Single Judge in Chamber accepted the constitutional petition mainly on the grounds that new criteria for promotion was not got approved, therefore, could not be applied in the cases of promotion and junior to respondent No,1 was promoted despite the fact that there was no adverse remarks or poor performance on the part of respondent No,
1. Before proceeding further, it would be advantageous to re-produce the prayer clause made in the constitutional petition, which reads as under:---- "In view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that the instant Writ Petition may graciously be accepted and the respondents may kindly be directed to promote the petitioner as Manager, with effect from the date, when his juniors (private respondents) have been promoted, with all consequential back benefits."
' From the prayer clause it is interesting to note that respondent No,1 filed constitutional petition for his promotion only and did not challenge the new criteria of promotion. It is also an admitted fact that respondent No,1 has been promoted in the year 2008. Although, learned counsel for respondent No,1 tried to prove that the same was done after approval of criteria but failed to submit any document in this regard. Even otherwise, learned counsel for respondent No,1 has failed to highlight or point out any regulations, according to which new criteria of promotion was required to be approved from Federal Government. We have carefully perused Article 49 of the Life Insurance (Nationalization) Order, 1972, but are unable to find that criteria for promotion was required to be got approved from Federal Government. Moreover, no criteria of promotion have been laid down in State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 invited our attention towards Headnote of Part-III of the same, where the words "APPOINTMENT, PROBATION, CONFIRMATION, INCREMENT AND PROMOTIONS" are mentioned, but when the subsequent regulations are perused, it appears that no criteria is laid down. The only word "promotion" appearing in the headnote is insufficient to advance the case of respondent No,
1. Since respondent No,1 has got benefit under new criteria of promotion, therefore, at present he is barred by his words and conduct claiming that the new criteria of promotion was not got approved from Federal Government. In view of above scenario, in constitutional petition, it was only to be seen as to whether respondent No,1 was ignored rightly or wrongly.
7. It is also an admitted fact that respondent No,1 was considered for promotion, but he was not found fit for the same. It is settled principle of law that promotion is not a vested right of an employee and seniority alone is not sufficient for that purpose. This principle was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Syed Noorul Hasan v. The Secretary, Ministry of Industries, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others (1987 SCMR 598) that:-- - "It was not element of seniority alone which was to be considered. Fitness is also an important consideration and has to co-exist with seniority. Promotion cannot be demanded as of right and seniority by itself cannot confer any absolute right of promotion irrespective of other considerations... Competent authority is to determine suitability after an assessment of all relevant considerations such as seniority, competence, rectitude, annual confidential reports and none of which is less important than the other for preservation of purity and efficiency in public service."
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Government of Pakistan through Establishment Division, Islamabad and 7 others v. Hameed Akhtar Niazi (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 110) has held that Seniority is one of the factors, which is considered for promotion, but seniority alone is not enough. Promotion is not automatic but it depends on many other factors, such as, competence, availability of post and antecedents etc.
9. As regards the change of new criteria for promotion is concerned, appellant was quite competent to change the same. In this regard we are also fortified by the case of Dr. Omer Farooq Zain v. Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan (2008 PLC (C.S.) 1012 {Lahore High Court}, wherein it has been held as under:- "Enhanced criteria for promotion etc. Was within the jurisdiction of the competent authority to prescribe."
' It was further held in the said case that High Court also had no jurisdiction to direct policy maker to correct the policy according to the convenience of candidates.
10. Learned Single Judge in Chamber has failed to elaborate that how the respondent No,1 was fit for promotion. Since the appellant was quite competent to amend the criteria of promotion, respondent No,1 was duly considered for promotion and was not found fit for the promotion, and subsequently respondent No,1 has already been promoted, therefore, constitutional petition filed by respondent No,1 was liable to be dismissed.
11. In view of above perspective, this Intra Court Appeal is accepted, the impugned order dated 13- 6-2011 passed in Writ Petition No,712 of 2007 is set aside and consequently, Writ Petition stands dismissed.