1. FAISAL ZAMAN KHAN, J. --- Through this petition order dated 21.01.2013 passed by respondent No, 4 has been assailed by virtue of which promotion asked for in view of 25% quota reserved for BS-1 to 4 employees has been regretted. The afore-noted order has been passed in pursuance of a direction issued by this Court in W.P. No, 28/2012.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents has raised an objection that this petition is not maintainable in view of the bar contained Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (Constitution), as petitioner is a civil servant in view of Section 17 of the WAPDA Act and his remedy lie either before the departmental appellate authority or else before the Federal Service Tribunal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been subjected to discrimination which is violation of Article 25 of the Constitution, therefore, his petition being distinguishable is maintainable.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in its judgment reported as Government of Sindh through Secretary Education and Literacy Department and others v. Nizakat Ali and others (2011 SCMR 592) has held that every Court prior to taking cognizance of and adjudicating upon an issue should first resort to the question of assumption of jurisdiction of the Court. If it comes to the conclusion that jurisdiction can be assumed only then it can adjudicate upon the issue. The question of assumption of jurisdiction and its exercise has very comprehensively been dealt with and decided by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in judgments reported as Fauji Foundation and another v. Shamimur Rehman (PLD 1983 SC 457) and The State v. Zia-ur-Rehman and others (PLD 1973 SC 49).
5. Admittedly petitioner is a civil servant and is asking for promotion which is part of terms and conditions of his service. For enforcement of these terms and conditions, Tribunals have been constituted under Article 212 of the Constitution which have EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION to look into and decide the questions relating to terms and conditions of service of a civil servant minus the question of his/her fitness for promotion. The bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution has also been sufficiently dilated upon by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in its various pronouncements and has held in unequivocal and clear terms that the bar is absolute. The words in which Article 212 of the Constitution is couched, the same give the said Article an overriding effect over the other Articles qua the determination of questions 'regarding terms and conditions of service of a civil servant. Oppose to the above the jurisdiction exercised under Article 199 being subject to the Constitution, therefore, the ouster of jurisdiction contemplated in Article 212 qua the terms and conditions of services of a civil servant will apply. Reliance can be placed on the judgments reported as All Azhar. Khan Baloch and others v. Province of Sindh and others (2015 SCMR 456), National Assembly Secretariat v. Manzoor Ahmed and another (2015 SCMR 253) Peer Muhammad v. Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary and others (2007 SCMR 54), Asadullah Rashid v. Haji Muhammad Muneer and others (1998 SCMR 2129), Khalid Mahmood Wattoo v. Government of Punjab and others (1998 SCMR 2280), Khalil-ur-Rehman and others v. Government of Pakistan and others (PLD 1981 Karachi 750) and Dr. Ghazanffarullah and 2 others v. Secretary Health, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and 6 others (2010 PLC (CS) 51).
6. As regards the, question raised by the learned counsel qua the violation of fundamental rights (Article 25 of the Constitution) it has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in judgment reported as 1.A. Sherw ani and others v. Government of Pakistan and others (1991 SCMR 1041) that by introducing a ground of violation of fundamental rights in a petition involving enforcement of terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, it will not vest this Court with the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the issue.
7. In the wake of an alternate efficacious remedy available to the petitioner under the law, jurisdiction of this Court is barred Reliance can be placed on Dr. Sher Afghan Khan Niazi v. Ali S. Habib & others (2011 SCMR 1813) and M. Abbas' v. S.H.O: Bhara Kahu & 7 others (PLD 2010 SC 969).
8. In view of the above, petitioner, if so advised may approach either the departmental appellate authority or else the Federal Service Tribunal for the redress of his grievance as the present petition is not maintainable.
9. In the above terms this petition is disposed of.