Nasrullah Khan Achakzai, Chairman.--The appellant has filed this service appeal under Section 4 of the Balochista.n Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the impugned promotion order dated 05.08.2000 of Respondent No, 3, with a prayer that order dated 05.08.2000 be set-aside and the said post of Assistant may be declared as of promotion quota.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant was appointed as Junior Clerk in the office of Commissioner Zhob Division Loralai in the year 1988. While, the Respondent No, 3 (Abdul Jalil) was appointed in the year 1990 as Junior Clerk in the said office. As such, the appellant and some other Clerks are senior to the Respondent No,
3. The Respondent No, 3 who was working in the main Establishment Department started the work as Assistant. When the appellant approached the Respondent No, 1, he was told that Respondent No, 3 has not been promoted rather officiating charge has been handed over to him. In the year 2012, the appellant was informed that an illegal and unlawful order had been passed in favour of Respondent No, 3 without fulfilling all the codal formalities. Thereafter, the appellant had filed representation before the Respondent No, 2 who was pleased to dismiss the same. Being aggrieved from the same, the appellant has filed the instant appeal before this Tribunal on 26-06-2013..
3. On notice, the Respondents No, 1,2 and 3 have filed their respective objections, wherein they stated that appellant did not approach the Respondent No, 1 while the Respondent No, 3 was adjusted against the vacant post of Assistant due to his qualification i,e, B.A and efficiency, in order to overcome the problems faced by the shortage of Assistants in Commissioner's Office. The sanction strength of Assistants (B-11) was thirty two (32) out of which thirteen (13) posts tell in the share of direct quota, while eleven (11) -fell in the share of promotion quota. The regular procedure had to be suspended at the direction of the Government of Balochistan for adjustment of surplus staff. In the light 'of, the directions of Government of Balochistan one Ejaz Ahmed Sanitarian (B-11) was adjusted against one of the available post of Assistant (B-11) in the share of direct quota.
Wherein, Mr.Abdul Jalil was adjusted against the second post to make up deficiency of staff on temporary basis. The Respondent No, 3 interalia stated that appellant has filed his first representation on 06-09-2000 before the competent authority and filed his second representation before the Respondent No, 2 on 02-04-2012, as such the appeal before this Tribunal is grossly time barred.
4. We have heard learned counsel for appellant, learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel for Respondent No, 3, perused the record with their assistance, considered their respective contentions. It is an admitted position that appellant was adjusted from the post of Junior Clerk to the post of Assistant in Commissioner Office Zhob Division Loralai, against the vacant post with immediate effect on 5.8.2000. The appellant had filed representation against order dated 5.8.2000, before the Commissioner Zhob Division at Loralai. On one hand the representation or departmental appeal can not be filed before the same authority that had already passed the impugned order i,e, Commissioner Zhob Division at Loralai. Thus, the departmental appeal filed by the appellant can not be termed as a representation or departmental appeal as contemplated by Rules 3(b) and 6 sub-rules (2) and (3) of the Balochistan Civil Appeal Rules, 2013. Thus, the appeal dated 6.9.2013, is not fit for consideration on any count. So far as, the departmental appeal or representations dated 12.2.2013 and 2.4.2012 are concerned, the representation dated 2.4.2012 has been filed against the impugned order dated 5.8.2000. It means that appellant had filed the departmental appeal dated 2.4.2012 after about a considerable period of more than eleven (11) years. While, under the Balochistan Civil Servants Appeal Rules, 2013 and its Rule 5 provide that a departmental appeal, review or representation shall be filed within a period of sixty (60) days from the date on which a copy of the order appealed against is delivered to the appellant. The appellant had been or has been working in the same office and he filed an application dated 06-09-2000. Thus, it can be presumed that on 06-09-2000, the copy of the impugned order was with him. The appellant neither explained the inordinate delay of more than eleven (11) years for filing the delayed representation before the authorities nor has explained the same before this Tribunal. The appellant has even not, filed any application for condonation of delay along-with this appeal. The second departmental appeal dated 12.02.2013 can not extend the period prescribed for filing of appeal before the Service Tribunal as no second (departmental appeal) has been provided in law.
We are in consonance with learned counsel for Respondent No, 3 for the above stated legal position. As such, the case law SCMR 2004 page 335 titled Muhammad Latif Vs. Assistant Chief of Air Staff (Personnel) and others is applicable in the present appeal. As from the above discussion we are of the considered view that we have to consider the question of limitation first. It is the settled principle, that this appeal is grossly barred by limitation. As such, we have the power to dispose of the same on the point of limitation alone. We are fortified by the case law referred by the counsel of Respondent No, 3 reported in 1999 PLC(CS) Page 862, titled Javed Dastgir Mirza Vs. Chief Secretary. As in sequence of the above reasons we dismiss this appeal as the same is not maintainable, being barred by limitation. With no order as to costs. File after completion be consigned to record. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.