' K. A. GHANI, J.--The petitioner No, 1 is an Association of the Ministerial Officers in the Central Excise and Land Customs Collectorate. Karachi, while the petitioners Nos. 2 to 12 are some of its members.
The above named petitioners have filed this petition in which they have made the following prayers :- "(a) declare that the decision of the respondent No, 1, vide its letter No, 2359/76 ACF/11, dated 25th September, 1979 addressed to the respondent No, 2 is illegal, void, bad in law and without jurisdiction as far as promotions of petitioner Association graduate qualified available members are concerned out of its 40 qualified graduate members in question and further pleased to order that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 should fill up the balance of II vacancies of Inspectors Central Excise and Land Customs from available graduate qualified members of the petitioner Association."
' The brief facts of the case are that on 12th April, 1976, Rules laying down method for promotion to the post of Inspectors of Central Excise and Land Customs were notified. These Rules were framed under section 25 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. About 40 members of the petitioner No, 1 on 29th/30th June, 1976 appeared in the qualifying examination then prescribed for the promotion to the post of Inspectors. Out of the successful candidates at the said examination the senior most 12 out of the 40 members of the Petitioner-Association who had passed the said examinations, were selected in accordance with the Notification dated 12th April, 1976 and given promotions to the rank of Inspectors in the then available vacancies.
' The above practice was however abolished by Notification No, SRO 57(1)77, dated 5th January, 1977 whereby new method, qualifications and conditions for appointment to post of Inspectors were laid down. Accordingly the petitioners were informed that selection was required to be made according to the conditions of eligibility prescribed by the Notification dated 5th January, 1977 which inter alia provided for departmental examinations to be held when vacancies occur.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they had passed the qualifying examinations under Notification dated 12th April, 1976 and were thus entitled to be promoted and that even otherwise the refusal to give them promotion was in violation of Notification of 5th January, 1977 as their right to be selected has been expressly saved, vide sub-clause (f) of Clause No,3 of the said Notification. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel it would be advantageous to reproduce the sub-clause hereinbelow :- "(f) The list of successful candidates who are selected by the D.P.C. Will continue to remain operative till the selected candidates are absorbed."
3. It is admitted by the learned counsel that 12 candidates who had passed the then examination held under Notification of 12th April, 1976 and who were the senior most were promoted and absorbed in the then available vacancies.
' Subsequently after Notification dated 5th January, 1977 came into force, fresh method, qualification and other conditions were laid down for appointment to post of Inspectors of Central Excise Department. According to this Notification dated 5th January, 1977 the earlier Notification of 12th April, 1976 was expressly superseded. The former Notification thus ceased to have any force and as noted earlier under this Notification promotions to posts of Inspectors now are required to be made from amongst the persons holding the posts specified in column 2 of clause 3 of the Notification and who possess the qualification and experience prescribed in column 3. In the Notification amongst others it is also provided, vide Explanation (a) that departmental Examinations would be held when vacancies occurred and under explanation CO the list of successful candidates who had been selected earlier by the D. P. C. Would continue to remain operative till the selected candidates were absorbed.
4. The claim of the petitioners (other than 12 officers already selected) is based upon passing of the qualifying examination under Notification of 12th April, 1976. However this claim of theirs is misconceived as mere passing of the qualifying examination would not create any vested right in the successful candidates to claim promotion and/or to enforce their claim to promotion by filing Writ Petition after the Notification under which the examinations were held was superseded. If any authority is needed reference may be made to the case of Muhammad Suleman Khan v. Pakistan
(I) where the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan held :- "It is obvious that the mere fact that the petitioner had passed the qualifying examination at the time when the system of examination for promotion was in vogue, did not create any vested right in the petitioner for promotion as Deputy Superintendent. If the Central Board of Revenue has since altered the channel of promotion, the petitioner cannot make a legitimate grievance of it as an infringement of any legal right amounting to alteration in the terms and conditions of his service.
As no right had vested in the petitioner for promotion by his having passed the examination under the old system, he cannot ask for the, enforcement of that right, and his petition was therefore, rightly dismissed by the High Court. It seems that in effect the petitioner is claiming seniority over respondents Nos. 4 to 11 on the ground of his having passed the qualifying examination, which the respondents had not. His effort to achieve that object by means of a writ petition in the High Court was entirely misconceived."
' In the case of Central Board of Revenue v. Asad Ahmad Khan (2) the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan while upholding the right to the Government to make rules to raise efficiency of its servants, held :- "In the circumstances it cannot be said that any rights of the petitioners were infringed, which they could enforce by a Writ petition. The Government has every right to make rules to raise the efficiency of the services and if so vested right is denied to a party, the High Court bad no jurisdiction to interfere by means of a Writ."
' In the light of the above principles, the claim of the petitioners to promotion as Inspectors merely on the basis of having passed the qualifying examinations in 1976 cannot be successfully entertained after Notification {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1972 SCM R 127 (2) PLD 1960 SC 81 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' dated 12th April, 1976 had been superseded by Notification dated 5th January, 1977.
5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that under the aforementioned sub-clause
(f) of the Explanation, the rights of the petitioners to be promoted on the basis of passing qualifying examination till they were absorbed in the vacancies was kept intact, does not find support from the said sub-clause itself as under it only list of those successful candidates who have been selected by the D. P. C. Is to continue to remain operative till the selected candidates are absorbed.
In the present case it has neither been averred nor established that the petitioners Nos. 2 to 12 have been selected by the D. P. C., or that their names appear in the list of the selected candidates. The only plea raised in the petition is that petitioners Nos. 2 to 12 have passed the examination held under the Notification dated 12th April, 1976, We have already reproduced above the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Suleman Khan where it is clearly held that merely passing of qualifying examination for promotion to a higher post and which system was subsequently abolished, the candidates who had passed the examination acquired no vested right and cannot ask for enforcement of any such right by invoking constitutional jurisdiction.
6. For the reasons discussed above and without going into the question of the non-maintainability of the petition otherwise, we find no merit in this Petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine.