' AYESHA A. MALIK, J.--- Through this petition, the Petitioner seeks proforma promotion,and pensionary benefits.
2. The case of the Petitioner is that he was not promoted in the year 2014 whereas Respondents Nos.2 and 3 were promoted as Deputy Registrar ("DR") who were junior to him. The Petitioner filed a representation which was heard and declined without assigning any reason. Thereafter, the Petitioner retired from service without being promoted. The Petitioner now prays that the seniority of Respondents Nos.2 and 3 be readjusted and he be given proforma promotion.
3. At the very outset, the question of maintainability of the instant petition was put before the learned counsel. He argued that the petition is maintainable on the strength of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Constitution Petition No,03 of 2014 and C.M.A No,8540 of 2015. He argued that in the stated judgment it is held that a writ against the High Court is maintainable and that the earlier law laid down in the cases titled "Asif Saeed v. Registrar Lahore High Court" (PLD 1999 Lahore 350) and "Muhammad lqbal and others v. Lahore High Court through Registrar and others" (2010 SCM R 632) has been declared as per incuriam.
4. The judgment relied upon essentially looked at the process for appointments, absorptions and transfers made in the Islamabad High Court, which was stated to be in violation of the Service Rules of the Islamabad High Court. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a writ may lie against an administrative/ consultative/ executive order passed by the Chief Justice or the Administration Committee, involving any violation of the Rules framed under Article 208, causing infringement of the fundamental rights of a citizen. Admittedly, the case at hand deals with the terms and conditions of service as the Petitioner is seeking proforma promotion. His case was considered and rejected by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court. No rule has been violated nor any fundamental right has been infringed. Reliance on the judgment of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan is also misplaced as the judgment of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan does not declare that every administrative order is amenable to writ jurisdiction. The judgment considered the violation of the High Court Rules and the powers exercised thereunder and found the petition to be maintainable on the ground that there was illegal exercise of power which impinged upon the statutory rights of the citizens and employees of the High Court. The case of the Petitioner is not only distinguishable but also against the dicta laid down in the case titled "Abrar Hussain v. Government of Pakistan and another" (PLD 1976 SC 315) wherein it was held that all actions and orders taken by the High Court or Supreme Court or by any Judge thereof in the exercise of the functions and powers of his office are not amenable to writ jurisdiction.
5. Petition is dismissed.