SHAFI-UR-RAHMAN, J.-The petitioner seeks leave to appeal under Article 212 (3) of the Constitution against the decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal whereby the appeal filed by him against his reversion as Game Watcher was dismissed with costs.
2. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 field the post of Game Watchers in the Department of Forest (Wildlife Wing) Government of Punjab. The petitioner belonged to the Sargodha Division, the respondent No. 3 to Lahore Division. The petitioner was, as a result of selection promoted as Game Inspector on 7-9-1977 and posted to Kasur as Game Inspector. Respondent No. 3 who bad been promoted ad hoc on 31-3-77 was reverted on 5-9-77 and the post so vacated by him was filled by the petitioner on promotion. The respondent filed a representation which was rejected. He moved yet another representation in the nature of review application which was accepted by the Secretary on 9-12-1979 and the promotion of the peti--tioner was undone. The ground on which this order was passed was that the petitioner could be promoted in his own Division and not outside. The Secretary considered the order of his promotion and the reversion of respon--dent No. 3 as "illegal and nullities".
3. The petitioner appealed to the Service Tribunal against this decision and the grounds taken up were that at no stage was hearing afforded to him though order patently adverse to him had been passed. It was also contended that the dismissal of earlier appeal filed by the respondent made the Secretary functus officio in the matter of entertaining any further representation or review.
Finally, it was contended that the order of the Secretary proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the promotion of the petitioner had not taken place against a clear vacancy of Sargodha Division. It was in fact against a vacancy of that Division that the promotion of the petitioner had taken place and it was only subsequently that he was transferred from that Division to Lahore.
4. The Tribunal examined the merits of the claim and came to the con--clusion that assumptions of fact and law made by the Secretary in passing the impugned order were correct and borne out from the record. Hence the claim of the petitioner was found to be untenable. However, as regards one of the submissions on the factual plane the Tribunal observed as follows :- "Before parting with this judgment we may notice the submission of the appellant that there was a vacancy in Sargodha Division where the appellant could also be accommodated. In case the plea of the appel--lant is factually correct he may be considered for appointment as Game Inspector in the Division of his origin."
5. The grounds taken up before the Service Tribunal have all been reiterated by the learned counsel for the petitioner before us.
6. It is not disputed that at the time the petitioner was promoted the rules applicable were of 1969 and not of 1962. It is further not denied that in accordance with the Rules of 1969 the post of Game Inspector, redesignated as Deputy Ranger (Wildlife), was to be filled up 50 per cent. By initial recruit--ment and 50 per cent. By promotion in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (5) of rule 6 from among Game Watchers of the Department "in the Division where the vacancies occur who has/have worked as such for at leas for five years and are Matriculates". It is, therefore, clear that for promotion the claim of the petitioner could lay in his Division and not outside. The vacancy which was claimed by him in Sargodha Division has been held by the Secretary not to be available at all on 7-9-1977 but it became available in November, 1977. This negatives the claim of the petitioner against that particular post. As regards any other post the Service Tribunal has left the question open and it will be for the petitioner to establish the availability and the existence of any other promotion post in Sargodha Division on 7-9-1977. We do not find any prejudice would thereby be caused to the interest of the petitioner due to this observation of the Tribunal.
7. It is correct that the petitioner was not afforded a hearing before the Secretary. The question, however, to be examined in these proceedings and before the Service Tribunal was whether the promotion of the petitioner and' his posting to Kasur on such promotion was in accordance with law and could be saved. If the vacancy did not belong to the Division in which the petitioner was serving then he could not be promoted under the rules and if the promotion had taken place, it was against law. We find that on merits the petitioner had no right to protect such a promotion. It being against law could be set aside.
8. The petition raises no such question of law as may require further examination by this Court. The leave is, therefore, refused.