Mudassir Khalid Abbasi, J.: This constitutional petition has been directed against the vires of order dated 28.09.2016 passed by the respondent whereby representation filed by the petitioner was rejected.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case are that petitioner is serving as Senior Technician in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Lahore as regular employee for the last about couple of years without any complaint from any corner .
Government of Punjab has approved a service structure for paramedics vide notification S.O.(ND)7 11/2010 (Paramedics) dated 24.11.201 1 whereby re organization of the said Cadre was approved under 4 Tier Allied Health Service Structure with the ratio 50:34:15:01 for Clinical & PHC in Punjab and accorded sanction to the up- gradation and re-designation of all existing categories of Allied Health Professional (Paramedics) posts from BS- 05 to BS-17. Subsequently, a notification No.SOR-III(S&GAD)1 25/2008 dated 14.04.2012 was issued according to which a criteria for promotion of the paramedics was introduced in terms of promotion upto scale-16 which was to be determined as 70% through promotion and 30% through initial appointment. Afterwards, said criteria was again altered and amendment was introduced through a notification dated 28.01.2015 amended in Paramedics Service Rules 2012 whereby 25% posts of Chief Technician BS 16 are reserved for initial recruitment and 75% for promotion purpose. Similarly, for the post of Technologists BS-14, 70% for initial recruitment and 30% by promotion has been reserved. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed a W.P. No.22715/2016 wherein, through an order dated 30.06.2016 respondent was directed to decide the representation filed by the petitioner within three months in accordance with law. In pursuance to the said order, respondent through the impugned order dated 28.09.2016 declined the representation filed by the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that impugned order is against the law and facts of the case. Further contends that afore-cited amendments in the Paramedics Service Rules 2012 are discriminatory , unjustified, unfair and unwarranted. Argued that respondent made the amendments in Rules ibid just to deprive the paramedics from his right of promotion. Contends that the fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution are being violated.
4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General supported the impugned order and controverted all the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner , argued that impugn ed order has been passed in accordance with law constitution petition is not maintainable as it relates to terms and conditions of the service of the petitioner , is hit by Article 212 of the Constitution and is liable to be dismissed.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Admittedly, the relief sought by the petitioner is that posts of Chief Technician BS-16 may be filled 100% by promotion and for Chief Technician BS-16, 70% posts be reserved for promotion from the incumbents of Chief Technician, therefore, the ultimate effect is linked with the promotion of the petitioner. Although the counsel for the petitioner has laid much stress on the argument that in fact as specific provisions of the Rules ibid have been called in question on the basis of the provisions of the constitution relating to the fundamental rights of the petitioner and other employees, therefore, it does not come within the purview of Article 212 of the Constitution.
However, at the very outset, it is observed that in fact petitioner has made an attempt to get a relief indirectly which he is not permitted to achieve directly . By now it has become an established law through consistent pronouncements made by the Hon'ble apex Court that what is not permitted to be done directly cannot be achieve through circumvention of law by indirect means. Reliance is placed on "Bank of Punjab and another v. Haris Steel Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. And others" (PLD 2010 SC 1 109).
7. Vires of the rules, challenged before this Court introduced through an amendment, infact relates to a policy domain of the executive side. No doubt this Court could interfere in any such even tuality , however , the criteria set out for the same is that it must be in conflict to any of the constitutional provision with particular reference to fundamental right of an employee.This Court under its constitutional jurisdiction has to act remaining within the parameters of law. Another aspect to be determined by this Court is to see that as to whether the amendment introduced under the policy has some rational behind it. It is to be noted that while passing the impugned order dated 28.09.2016, respondent has observed that the rules for the post of Chief Technician of BS-16 and Technologists BS-17 have been framed keeping in view the qualification of the paramedic/allied health professionals and availability of the fresh graduates having prescribed qualification. It is further narrated that the rules were framed in order to induct the fresh lot of graduates in order to provide them an opportunity to participate and perform for the better performance and improvement in the relevant field. On the other hand, petitioner could not advance any logical argument in support of his claim that 100% posts of Chief Technician BS-16 may be reserved for promotion quota and 70% posts of technologists may be reserved for promotion from the incumbents of the technician.
8. In "Zafar Iqbal v. Director , Secondary Education" (2006 SCMR 1427 ), it has categorically been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Government is empowered to alter the policy relating to the promotion of civil servant and it is exclusive domain of the executive to prescribe the qualification for a particular post through amendment in the relevant portion is reproduced as under:- "The Government is always empowered to change the promotion policy and the domain of the Government to prescribe the qualification for a particular post through amendment in the relevant rules, is not challengeable. This is also a settled law that notwithstanding fulfillment of the requirement qualification and other conditions contained in the rules, the promotion cannot be claimed as a vested right."
9. Since the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the vires of rules are in contra vention to any constitutional provision with particular reference to the fundamental right of the petitioner , therefore, the matter squarely falls within the purview of Article 212 of Constitution in respect of eligibility for promotion which relates to terms and conditions of service subject to adjudicati on by the Service Tribunal as laid down in, "Mian Abdul Malik v. Dr. Sabir Zameer Siddiqui" (1991 SCMR 1129), "Muhammad Anis v. Abdul Haseeb" (PLD 1994 SC 539) and "Saleemullah Khan v . Shahid Hamid" (2011 SCMR 788 ).
In view of the foregoing discussion, I am not persuaded to interfere in the impugned order dated 28.09.2016, therefore, this petition does not succeed and is dismissed.