SHUJAA T ALI KHAN, J.---Unnecessary details apart, National Bank of Pakistan (NBP) introduced Promotion Policy for the years 2013, 2014 and 2015 through President's Office Circular No,07/2015, dated 03.06.2015. The petitioner retired from service on 10.06.2 015 and as he was not given promotion as per the above policy , he filed W.P. No,38318/2015 which was disposed of by this Court through order , dated 18.04.2016, directing the respondents to treat the said petition as representation of the petitioner . Pursuant to orders of this Court the matter of the petitioner was taken up and his representation/appeal was dismissed vide order , dated 29.06.2016; hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner was in service, in the years 2013 and 2014 he was entitled for promotion as per afore-referred policy; that as his promotion was delayed due to inaction, on the part of the competent authority the petitioner could not be made to suffer due to lapse on the part of the competent authority; that according to the policy person on LPR was entitled for promotion, however , as the petitioner was not on LPR in the years 2013 and 2014 he was entitled to promotion under the said policy . Relies on Secretary School of Education and others v. Rana Arshad Khan and others (2012 SCMR 126), Ch. Muhammad Insha Ullah and others v. Chief Conservator of Forests (P&E) Punjab and others (PLD 1988 SC 155), The Province of the Punjab through the Secretary , Services and General Administration, Lahore v. Syed Muhammad Ashraf (1973 SCMR 304), Munsif Shah v. PEPCO through Managing Director , Lahore and 4 others (2013 PLC (C. S.) 223), Mrs. Naseem M. Qadri v. Federation of Pakistan and another (2009 PLC (C. S.) 229) and Syed Altaf Hussain Bukhari v.
Accountant General, Azad Jammu and Kashmir and 2 others (1999 PLC (C.S.) 1091 ).
3. On the other hand, learned counsel representing NBP while opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner was no more in service at the time of finalization of the Promotion Policy he was not entitled for promotion. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the cases reported as Abdul Hameed v. Ministry of Housing and Works, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad through Secretary and 9thers (PLD 2008 SC 395), Muhammad Aslam Sultan v. Federation of Pakistan through General Manager , Pakistan Railways, HQRs,, Lahore and another (2006 SCMR 1465 ), Abid Hussain Sherazi v. Secretary M/o Industries and Production, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad (2005 SCMR 1742 ), Government of Pakistan through Establishment Division, Islamabad and 7 others v. Hameed Akhtar Niazi, Academy of Administrative, Walton Training, Lahore and others (PLD 2003 SC 110), Muhammad Alamgir v. National Bank of Pakistan through Regional Head Sialkot and 3 others (2017 PLC (C.S.) 896), Afzaal Anwar Baig v. President Natio nal Bank of Pakistan and 2 others (2016 PLC (C. S.) 932), Liqat Ali v. Government of N.-W .F.P. through Secretary Home and Tribal Affairs Department, Peshawar and 10 others (2014 PLC (C.S.) 982), Kokab lqbal v. Manager National Bank of Pakistan, Lahore and 3 others (2014 PLC (C. S.) 876) and Muhammad Alam gir v. National Bank of Pakistan through Regional Head and others (2014 PLC (C.S.) 963 ).
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the documents, annexed With this petition, as well as the case-law cited at the bar .
5. A bare perusal of the Promotion Policy shows that promotion against a higher post in the aforesaid years was subject to evaluation in the shape of seniority , professional qualification, professional rating of last three years, educational qualification in addition to interview . It is admitted position that the petitioner did not appear for interview , thus, without his assessment he could not be promoted.
6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner candidly stated that the petitioner is not seeking proforma promotion but the said stance of learned counsel stands negated from clause (i) of the prayer clause which for convenience of reference is reproduced herein below: - "(i) To consider the petitioner for next high grade promotion/proforma promotion from Assistant Vice President to Vice President w . e.f. 01-01-2013 and 01-01-2014 already with his colleagues/batch mates/juniors."
7. So far as the case-law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, suffice it to note that the same is quite distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the instant case for the reason that as the petitioner did not appear for interview he failed to fulfill the pre-requisite for promotion under the said Promotion Policy .
8. For what has been considered above, instant petition has no force and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.