1. ' KH. GHULAM QADIR (MEMBER).-Appellant Muzaffar Waffa filed this service appeal calling into question the validity and legality of the impugned order No, 15871-15884/77, dated 14th December, 1977 whereby the appellant was reverted from the post of Section Officer.
2. ' The brief facts that led to the filing of this appeal are briefly stated as follows:- ' The appellant had joined the service under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government on 1st September, 1949 as Junior Clerk in the Civil Secretariat. Later on, he was promoted as Assistant in the Civil Secretariat in 1956 and then as Superintendent. It was in 1976 that in accordance with the Cabinet decision dated 25th December, 1976 a written test and interview for departmental promotions from amongst Assistants, Superintendents and Stenographers to the post of Section Officers was held on 6th January, 1977 by the Selection Board and, as a result besides other seven officials the appellant also was selected for promotion and appointed as Section Officer, Commerce and Industry Department vide Admn. No, 2908-45/77, dated 13th February, 1977. Under the said Government Order all the selected officers were to undergo a training course for 3 months in the Federal Government Service Training Institute, Rawalpindi. Furthermore, under clause (a) of this Government order it was provided that these promotees shall be on probation for two years and under clause (b) it was laid down that the promotees/appointees shall be bound to return successful in the proposed training and those officers who may be declared unsuccessful in the training shall be reverted to their original posts.
3. ' Consequently, the promotees including the appellant were sent for the proposed training but on the conclusion of the training the appellant was declared unsuccessful whereupon the impugned order reverting the appellant to his original post followed.
4. ' The appellant filed a review petition on 31st February, 1977 against the impugned order which was rejected on 12th February, 1980. After having exhausted the departmental remedy available under the service law the appellant filed this appeal before the Service Tribunal on 10th March, 1980 on the following grounds :- (i)That the appellant could not be reverted before the expiry of two years probationary period coupled with the chances provided under rules to clear the rest of the papers in which he failed.
(ii) That under rules the appellant was entitled to qualify the training from Central Government Institute within two years but his reversion before availing of all the chances of qualifying the training as provided under the rules was illegal and contrary to the rules applicable to the said training.
(iii) That the impugned order was passed without any show-cause notice and thus he was condemned unheard against the principle of natural justice.
(iv) That the impugned order being in conflict with the rule 3 (ii) of Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1977, is liable to be set aside.
(v) That some junior Assistants, namely, Mr. Ghulam Qadir, Mr. Rafique Butt and Mr. Saeed Qadri who had failed in the departmental efficiency test mentioned above held for the promotion of Assistants etc. Have now been promoted to the posts of Section ' Officers but the appellant who had passed the said efficiency test but failed to qualify all the papers in one chance in the Training Institute has been reverted against all cannons of justice and equity.
5. ' With these submissions the appellant has prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the appellant declared to be continuing to hold the post of Section Officer.
6. ' The respondent filed written objections and contended that demotion of appellant was correctly made in accordance with the law under section 5 (iii) of Civil Servants Act, 1976 and that Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1977 do not apply to the cases of appellant in so far as concession for alleged and claimed by the appellant under para. 14 (b) of his memo. Of appeal. Moreover, the rules mentioned in para. (c) of the appeal are not applicable in Azad Jammu & Kashmir. Similarly, the officers mentioned under para. 17 of the appeal cannot be benefited by quoting their example. With these submissions the respondent prayed for the dismissal of the appeal with costs.
7. ' We have heard the arguments made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of appeal.
8. ' The main contention upon which the fate of the case of the appellant hinges is whether the impugned order dated 13th February, 1977 where-under appellant al ongwith other six promotees were sent in the Federal Government Secretariat Training Institute, Rawalpindi for three months training subject to a stipulation that the promotees shall be reverted to their original post if they failed to come out successful from the proposed training was validity made by the respondent No, 2 and whether time limit of 3 months for successful training was fixed in violation of any training Rules.
9. ' We concentrated our serious attention to this proposition and came to the conclusion that under service rules the Government is competent to prescribe any examination, test or training in any institute for the Civil Servants in the interest of better and efficient administration and for further promotions. Consequently the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Government vide its Order Admn. No, 2908- 45/77, dated I3th February, 1977, ordered that the promotees detailed in the order shall undergo training for three months in the Federal Government Secretariat Training Institute, Rawalpindi and under clause (b) of the said order the Government further imposed an imperative condition that if any of the promotees failed to come out successful in the proposed training he shall be reverted to his original post. The duration of the proposed training was three months and passing of the training was to be governed by the rules of the said Training Institute as regards the chances permissible to pass the training, normally, two more chances are allowed to clear all the papers in an examination in addition to the first attempt and if any trainee fails to pass all the papers even after availing of all the chances then such an official can be reverted to his original post. In this case the respondent, Government allowed only one chance to pass the proposed training contrary to general rules and practice and the promotees could very well object to such a harsh condition when the impugned order was passed and request the Government to amend the impugned order in so far the condition of passing the training in one attempt (within three months) was concerned so as to bring the same in consonance with the prevalent rules of the concerned Institute, or at least could submit a protest to this effect to the Government before proceeding for the proposed training. Unfortunately, none of the promotees acted in the above manner and, consequently, joined the training under the impugned order unconditionally. Having thus accepted the conditions of promotion, now it does not lie in the mouth of any of the promotes/trainees to turn round and say that the condition of reverting the promotees to their original posts if any of them failed in the proposed training was illegal and contrary to the rules and regulations of either the Government or the training Institute, made in respect of chances of passing the examination or the training course.
10. The promotes including the appellant by acceptation the condition took the risk of passing the training in first attempt and rendered themselves liable to reversion if failed to clear the same.
11. As discussed above we feel ourselves unable to help the appellant in the circumstances of the case and are constrained to repel the contention 4 of the learned counsel for the appellant that the condition imposed under clause (b) of the impugned order made by the respondent/Government was illegal, and in violation of any rules as having no force in it.
12. ' The other contention of the counsel for the appellant that the appellant was condemned unheard also does not hold water and is without any substance. The respondent had expressly made it clear to all the promotees in the impugned order that if they failed to come out 8 successful in the aforesaid training course they shall be reverted to their original posts and this condition was accepted by the promotes without objection.
13. ' As such the terms of promotion were very clear and the promotes acted upon the same with open eyes and nothing was left obscure or worth explanation. The reversion was just a natural corollary to the terms of the impugned order and there was nothing surprising for the appellant if he was reverted which fact must have been foreseen by the appellant too.
14. ' In these circumstances it cannot be said that the impugned order was passed without hearing or that the appellant was condemned under:-- 'I heard. Nothing seems to have offended the principle of audi alteram partem.
15. ' Another contention of the appellant is that some of his colleagues as named in the memo. Of appeal who had failed in the departmental examination hate now been promoted as Section Officers whereas the appellant who had passed the departmental test but failed to qualify the training in first attempt was reverted and such a treatment to him was against justice and equity.
16. Such a fact and plea may lend some moral support to the competent authority for the promotion of the appellant but does not provide any legal basis to the appellant upon which we may give any relief to him.
17. ' As discussed above the appeal is found without any weight and substance and is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.
18. ' SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-I agree.