' NASIR SAEED SHEIKH, J.--- The petitioner is a civil servant posted as Member, Chief Minister's. Inspection Team, Government of Punjab, Lahore in BPS-20. Her case for promotion to BPS-21 was placed before the Provincial Selection Board but was deferred. The Provincial Selection Board again considered the case of the petitioner in April, 2010 and May, 2010 and she was not promoted. Lastly the case of the petitioner was considered in the meeting of the Provincial Selection Board on 29-6- 2011 and the Board passed the following order:- "Superseded for promotion to the rank of Secretary to Government of the Punjab / Commissioner of the Division and other equivalent posts (BS-21) as the officer has failed to fulfil the eligibility threshold."
This recommendation of the Provincial Selection Board was approved by the Chief Minister/Competent Authority and was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 10-9-2011 which is placed as Annexure C.
2. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 10-9-2011 describing it to be a supersession order in the prayer clause of the writ petition. The contention raised by the petitioner was that the respondent No,3/Chief Secretary of the Government of the Punjab is personally biased against her on account of some long standing controversial conflict between the PCS and CSP officers and the petitioner thus specifically made a prayer No, (iii) in her writ petition that the respondent No,3 be excluded from the forthcoming meeting of the Provincial Selection Board and the matter of the petitioner's promotion be directed to be considered by the Provincial Selection Board afresh. The prayer clause No,(iii) is very important and is reproduced below:- "The respondent No,1 may very kindly be directed to place the petitioner's promotion case before the respondent No,2 in the forthcoming meeting of the Provincial Selection Board, respondent No,3 may very kindly be directed not to chair the meeting of the Provincial Selection Board while considering the petitioner's promotion case to BS-21 and the respondent No,2 may kindly be directed to re-consider the petitioner's promotion case fairly, justly and without being influenced from the previous supersession."
3.. This writ came up for preliminary hearing on 5-10-2011. The learned A.A.-G. Was directed to address the arguments at the preliminary stage.
4. The learned A.A.-G. Has appeared today and has raised preliminary objection that the matter relating to the consideration of the eligibility of the petitioner to be promoted does not fall within the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The learned A.A.-G. Relied upon the following reported judgments in supporting of his contention MUHAMMAD ANIS AND OTHERS V. ABDUL HASEEB AND OTHERS (PLD 1994 SC 539), ZAFAR ULLAH BALOCH v. GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN AND OTHERS (2002 SCM R 1056), ABDUL GHAFOOR, SUPERVISOR/INSPECTOR, N:H.A. V. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY AND 12 OTHERS (2002 SCM R 574), MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND OTHERS V. EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE), LODHRAN AND ANOTHER (2007 SCM R 682) and Miss ZUBAIDA KHATOON V. Mrs. TEHMINA SAJID SHEIKH AND OTHERS (2011 SCM R 265).
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in reply to the arguments of the learned A.A.-G. Has argued that since the impugned order passed in respect of the petitioner has been itself described as the supersession order therefore such an order is not a question of eligibility of the petitioner but pertains to the sphere of the fitness of the petitioner which essentially involves the undertaking process of objective evaluation and this aspect of the terms and conditions of the civil servant is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal and the only remedy available to the petitioner is to assail the impugned action through instituting the instant writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments reported as MUHAMMAD ANIS AND OTHERS V. ABDUL HASEEB AND OTHERS (PLD 1994 SC 539), GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, THROUGH SECRETARY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, LAHORE AND ANOTHER V. DR. AMAN-UL-HAQ, M.S. DISTRICT HEADQUARTER, GUJRANWALA (2000 SCM R 1805), SHAMAS TEXTILE MILLS LTD AND OTHERS V.
THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS (1999 SCM R 1477), (1993 PSC 576), MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND OTHERS V. EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE), LODHRAN AND ANOTHER (2007 SCM R 682) and SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION AND OTHERS V. MUHAMMAD SALEEM (2008 SCM R 948). Thus the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the writ petition is competent before this Court for the redress of her grievance. As an alternative plea the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that if it is treated as an order with respect to the eligibility of the petitioner by this Court then the writ petition be allowed to be returned to the petitioner so that the matter could be agitated before the Punjab Service Tribunal by the petitioner.
6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The perusal of the impugned order as communicated to the petitioner through letter dated 10-9- 2011 which although commences with the words superceded for promotion but the order communicated certainly points out that the petitioner could not fulfill the eligibility threshold which was necessary for her to qualify for promotion. The Provincial Selection Board thus duly considered the question of suitability of the petitioner and expressed an opinion that the petitioner is not found to be suitable for promotion as she did not fulfil the eligibility threshold. This opinion of the Provincial Selection Board/respondent No,2 cannot be described as illegal and without lawful authority. No civil 'servant has an absolute right of promotion. The Superior Courts have laid down the law that the civil servant has a right to be considered for promotion and the case of the petitioner has been considered by the Provincial Selection Board and the petitioner was not found suitable for promotion. The petitioner has herself placed on record a letter dated 28-4-2010 communicating some adverse remarks to her and the following observations in the said adverse remarks were highlighted in the letter dated 28-4-2010 which has been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure-D which, remarks are reproduced below:--- "During the course, she kept a low profile and contributed when called upon to do so during group assignments. Having little exposure beyond her own area of operation, she approached the requirements of the course with a limited knowledge-base pertaining to public policy issues.
Although she did not seem to show any resistance towards the training programmer, she was not so keen for making an extra effort to make up for her deficiencies. She was neither articulate nor proficient in her oral and written communication skills. The officer did not possess any significant leadership quality or the ability to inspire much confidence among her colleagues. Intellectually she could not rise above the operational and tactical level and remained indifferent towards inquiry and research. Due to her introvert personality and reserved attitude, her colleagues have placed her near the bottom of the course in all the three assessed facets of personality, which corresponds with her demonstrated performance."
' Ms. Ghaffar has a restricted capacity to undertake any major challenging assignment with a limited potential for career progression and is suitable for employment on routine assignments within her own service group.
8. The order communicated to the petitioner through letter dated 10-9-2011 has been passed by the Provincial Selection Board after duly considering the case of the petitioner. This Court has not been persuaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner during his arguments that any law has been specifically violated in arriving at the order communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 10-9- 2011. This court does not find itself in a position to assess the suitability of the petitioner for promotion. If the Punjab Service Tribunal has been debarred from deciding suitability of the cases of civil servants, which primarily rest with the departmental promotion authority, such an opinion of departmental promotion authority/Provincial Selection Board cannot be substituted by this Court.
9. As far as the third prayer of the petitioner as reproduced above incorporated in the prayer clause that the respondent No,3 be excluded from chairing the Provincial Selection Board so that the case of the petitioner could be considered by a Board excluding the respondent No,3 is concerned there is no legal provision referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner for passing such an order. The alleged controversy raised by the petitioner about some persisting conflict/fight between the CSP and PCS officers is neither here nor there and is more conceptual than real. The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the first instance does not support the maintainability of the writ petition where a civil servant has been duly considered for promotion and promotion has been denied to him/her. Unless and until some violation of any rules or law is pointed out, the matters even not falling within the jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal, cannot be raised before the High Court through a writ petition as this Court can only pass an order after analyzing as to whether an action of departmental authority is violate of any rules, regulations or law for the time being in force or not. None of such eventualities have been urged or pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner and simply alleging the mala fides in respect of the respondent No,3 which facts do not find support from any document on the file or any order passed by the said respondent No,3 alone in the matter, this Court is reluctant to interfere in the matter on such allegations. It appears that the petitioner is endeavoring to get a Selection Board constituted as of her choice for consideration of her promotion matter. No civil servant has any vested right to make such a prayer before a Court of Constitutional jurisdiction.
10. In view of all the above circumstances finding no substance and force in this writ petition, the same is accordingly dismissed in liming.