Mohammad Azam Khan, C.J.- The above titled petition for leave to appeal arise out of the judgment of the High Court dated 5th October , 2016, whereby a writ petition filed by the petitioners, herein, has been dismissed in limine.
2. The precise facts for disposal of the petition for leave to appeal are that the petitioners, herein, filed a writ petition in the High Court, alleging therein that they are serving as Ledger Clerk and Bill Distributor respectively in the office of Public Health Engineering Department, Mirpur . They requested that the respondents be directed to promote the petitioners in BPS-9. A learned single Judge in the High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine through impugned order dated 5th October , 2016, by observing that such direction is not permissible under law, hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Kh. Muhammad Nasim, Advocate counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the judgment of the High Court is against law and the record. Important legal questions were involved in the writ petition. The writ petition should have been admitted for regular hearing. The petitioners have a right to be promoted on merit.
On question by the High Court that how a direction can be issued to the authority for promotion of some civil servants, the learned counsel submitted that moulded relief can be granted by the Court. He relied upon the case reported as Abdul Rasheed & 85 others vs. Board of Trustees & 3 others [2008 SCR 417].
4. While controverting the arguments, Mr. Raza Ali Khan, the learned Advocate General, submitted that no legal question was involved in the writ petition for admission of the same for regular hearing. The petitioners sought a direction to the respondents that respondents shall promote them in BPS-9. Under law a direction cannot be issued in the writ jurisdiction for promotion to a higher post. No legal question is involved in the petition for leave to appeal.
He requested for dismissal of the same.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
6. The petitioners claimed the following relief in the writ petition:- "It is therefore, very humbly prayed on behalf of the petitioners that the respond ents may kindly be directed to promote the petitioners against the posts of Senior Clerk B-9 in the light of the seniority list dated 05.03.2012 framed by them and further the respondents may kindly be restrained themselves from promoting other employees i.e. junior clerks without promoting the petitioners as senior clerks. Any other relief which the petitioners are entitled may kindly be granted in the interest of justice."
A civil servant can seek a direction to the effect that his case be considered for promotion on merit. A direction for promotion of a civil servant cannot be issued by the Court in writ jurisdiction. The petitioners prayed that in the light of the seniority list issued on 5th March, 2012, a direction be issued to the respondents to promote them in BPS-9 and also sought restraint order that till their promotions any other civil servant junior clerk may not be promoted prior to their promotion. Such direction cannot be issued under law .
The high Court has committed no illegality . No legal question is involved in the writ petition for admission of the writ petition. No legal question is involved in the petition for leave to appeal for grant of leave. Leave cannot be granted in every case to create a false hope in a party . The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.