' MUHAMMAD AZIM KHAN AFRIDI, J.--- Nauman Aslam and others are seeking indulgence of this Court by invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the "Constitution" with a prayer to declare notifications dated 15-10-2008 and 31-12-2008 as illegal, unlawful and without lawful authority and, in consequence thereof, respondents be directed to promote the petitioners w.e.f. 15-10-2008 as Additional Directors (BPS-19) with all consequential back benefits.
2. Brief facts relevant for the disposal of the instant wirt petition are that the petitioners were appointed as Deputy Directors (BPS-18) in consequence of advertisement of the posts and after adopting the prescribed procedure of test and interview. That prior to joining the present positions, the petitioners had also worked in the various departments as highlighted in the body of the petition. That the petitioners were placed at serial Nos.13, 19, 23, 28 and 29 of the final seniority list circulated by the NAB Authorities vide letter dated 2-9-2008. Those all of a sudden junior officers were promoted in BPS-19 as Additional Directors vide impugned notifications referred to above and petitioners ignored in violation of the rules and law. That the petitioners filed the departmental representations, which were not accepted. That the impugned notifications are illegal, void an initio, unlawful and contrary to the NAB employees terms and conditions of service (TCS), Rules, 2002, as officers junior to the petitioners could not be promoted under the said rules. That the petitioners are left with no alternate remedy, but to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that junior officers were appointed by the respondents in clear violation of the rules as the petitioners, being senior, were deferred. That according to the terms and conditions of service rules, junior officers could not be considered for promotion unless and until officers senior to them are promoted. He placed reliance on para No,3.34 NAB Employees Terms and Conditions of Services (TCS), 2002 and argued that where a post in BPS-18 and above is to be filled-in by promotion, the senior most employee belonging to the cadre concerned and otherwise eligible for promotion is to be considered for the same and in case a senior officer belonging to such a cadre and otherwise eligible for promotion does not possess the prescribed length of service, the appointing authority is to appoint him to such post on acting charge basis. He further argued that in such eventuality, an employee junior to such officer cannot be considered for regular promotion and he is to be appointed on acting charge basis to a higher post.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents argued that the writ petition is not competent as nature of such proceedings is of summary nature. That factual controversy is involved which cannot be determined through issuance of writ. That the petitioners do not enjoy the prescribed length of 12 years' service. They further argued that the post in BPS-19 and above were selection posts available for promotion by selection on merit, while posts in BPS-18 and below being non-selection posts were available for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness.
Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on paras 3.25 and 3.22 of the said rules.
Reliance was also placed on PLD 1974 Supreme Court 151.
5. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties heard and record perused.
6. Part-III NAB Employees TCS, 2002 deal with the cases of appointment by promotion. The relevant paragraph 3.22 is reproduced herein for facilitation.
"PART-HI"
3.22 Classification of the Posts ' The posts in the cadres are classified as under:-
(1) The Posts in basic scale 19 and above are selection posts to which promotion will be made by selection on merit.
(2) Posts in basic scale 18 and below are non-selection posts to which promotion will be made on the basis of seniority-cumfitness."
7. Thus, it is clear that the posts of Additional Directors BPS-19 are selection posts and promotion to the Same is to be made by selection on merit. Paragraph 3.25 of the said Part-III prescribes minimum length of service for promotion to posts in BPS- 18 and above. For promotion to posts in BPS-19, 12 years' service in BPS-17 and above has been prescribed as minimum length of service for promotion. It is not disputed that the petitioners do not have the required length of service, and as such, they cannot be considered for promotion against the post of Additional Directors (BPS-19) by selection on merit. Paragraph 3.34 of Part-VII of the said rules provides that posts in BPS-18 and above reserved for promotion are to be filled-in on acting charge basis when the most senior employee belonging to the cadre concerned and otherwise eligible for promotion does not possess the prescribed length of service.
8. Respondents promoted to the posts of Additional Directors were having the prescribed length of service of 12 years and as such eligible to promotion in view of terms and conditions laid down in paragraph 3.25 read with 3.22 of the said rules and as such it cannot be stated that their appointments against the said posts in BPS-19 was against the prescribed rules.
9. Promotion of the respondents to the position of Additional Directors has not effected any vested right of the petitioners as they were not qualified for consideration against the said posts due to lacking of prescribed length of service, as such, the petitioners were having no vested right to be considered for promotion. Furthermore, the petitioners are in a position to re-agitate the issue, claim seniority, if any and available to them when they become eligible for such claim after earning the prescribed length of service necessary for the post of Additional Director (BPS-19) since the petitioners are not eligible to be considered for promotion at this stage of the case, as such no writ in the mode and manners prayed for by the petitioners can be issued.
10. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.