Raja Saeed Akram Khan, J. The titled appeal by leave of the Court has been filed against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 13.04.2018, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants, herein, has been dismissed.
2. Precise facts of the case are that the appellants are the permanent employees of Education Department. The Government for the purpose to prescribe minimum qualification, experience and method of recruitment against the posts falling in the teaching cadre of the Elementary and Secondary Education Department introduced, The Azad Jammu and Kashmir Elementary and Secondary Education Department Teachi ng Cadre Service Rules, 2016, (hereinafter to be referred as Rules, 2016) while repealing the Service Rules, 1994. The appellants, herein, challenged the vires of the amended rules by filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal, claiming therein, that by making radical changes in the rules the right of promotion available to the appellants has been snatched. The amended rules are violative of the constitutionally guaranteed rights and based on mala fide. The learned Service Tribunal after necessary proceedings dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment dated 13.04.2018, hence, this appeal by leave of the Court.
3. Syed Shahid Bahar , Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned judgment is based on misconception of law and the facts of the case. He submitted that the appellants challenged the vires of the Rules, 2016, mainly on the ground that by making unjust changes, in respect of the minimum qualification and method of recruitment, the appellants have been deprived of their right of promotion but the learned Service Tribunal failed to attend and resolve this crucial point. He contended that a right had already been accrued to the appellants in the light of the previous rules and the learned Service Tribunal failed to adhere to the principle of law that the right which is already accrued to a party cannot be taken away by repealing of any law. The learned counsel maintained that in this regard the learned Service Tribunal has not considered the principle of law enunciated by the apex Court in the case reported as Basharat Hussain and others v. Muhammad Imtiaz and others 12009 SCR 5301 . He submitted that there is no cavil with the proposition that the Government is fully competent to amend or alter the prescribed qualification for promotion as well as enhance or curtail the quota, but it is also well settled principle of law that powers must be exercised in a judicious manner . He lastly argued that in view of Section 56(c) of the Interim Constitution Act, 1974, read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, by making amendments already vested right cannot be snatched.
4. On the other hand, Sardar Karam Dad Khan, Advocate-General and Ch. Shoukat Aziz, Advocate, while appearing on behalf of the respondents strongly controverted the arguments adva nced by the learned counsel for the appellants. They submitted that the impugned judgment is based on proper appreciation of law and the facts of the case which is not open for interference by this Court. They contended that the proposition involved in the matter in hand has already been resolved by this Court in the cases reported as Rizwan Muzaf far v. Azad Government and 8 others 12010-SCR 156] and Zaffar Iqbal Khan and 52 others v. Azad Government and 5 others (2018 SCR 10791. They added that no right of the appellants has been infringed by making amend ments in the rules, moreover , under law it is prerogative of the Government to amend/alter the rules which can only be abolished if the same are ultra-vires the Constitution or the parent Act but no such eventuality is available in the case in hand.
5. We have heard the arguments and examined the available record with utmost care. The Government through Rules, 2016, enhanced the qualification for promotion/appointment and curtailed the quota reserved for promotion.
The claim of the appellants is that by the amendments introduced through Rules, 2016, the right of promotion of the appellants has been snatched. During the course of arguments counsel for both the parties agreed that the Government is empowered to enhance, alter or amend the prescribed qualification for a particular posts and to enhance or curtail the quota, however , the only objection of the learned counsel for the appellant in the present matter was that by making amendments the right of promotion already accrued to the appellants has been snatched which is not permissible under law. From the perusal of the record it transpires that nothing is available on record to show that prior to the promulgation of Rules, 2016, the case of any of the appellants had been ripe for promotion, but due to the subsequent amendments a right already accrued to him has been infringed. It appears from the record that the appellants' claim is based on such a right which may accrue to them in future, it is very astonishing, if their claim is accepted then consequently , the way of making amendments in the rules shall be closed which is against the scheme of law. It may be observed here that enhancem ent in the minimum qualification for promotions/ appointments is the need of the hours and when nothing is available on record to show that the enhancements introduced through Rule, 2016, are ultra vires the Constitution or based on mala fide then the powers duly conferred to the Government by law cannot be shattered. We deem it proper to observe here that this Court in a number of pronouncements has held that a civil servant cannot claim a vested right for promotion to a particular post with the claim that the rules be framed in such a manner so that he may be promoted. In the instant case, as it is obvious from the record that the appellants challenged the amended rules only on the ground that the same are not suitable for them, therefore, in view of the settled law the wish of the appellants cannot be fulfilled.
The appellants May improve the qualifications to achieve the goal, In the matter in hand to get the claimed relief from the Court the appellants had to prove that the amended rules are inconsistent with the provisions of the parent Act or the Constitution, but they failed to do so, therefore, the same cannot be declared as illegal/ ultra vires the Constitution. In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondents has rightly relied upon the case law reported as Zaffar Iqbal Khan and 52 others v. Azad Government and 5 others [2018 SCR 1079], wherein while dealing with the same proposition this Court held as under:- "After going through the record of the case it appears that the appellants are defen ding the policy notification mere on the ground that the criterion for promo tion given in the policy notification dated 15.05.2009, is suitable for them; except this reason nothing is available on record to show that what sort of violation of the provision of Civil Servants Act or the Constitution has been made by the Government while framing the Rules. It may be observed here that a civil servant cannot claim a vested right for promotion to a particular post with the claim that the Rules be framed in such a manner so that he may be promoted. As we have already observed hereinabove that it is settled principle of law that rules cannot be enacted, altered or amended on the sweet-will of any civil servant and to declare the same as illegal/ ultra vires the Constitution, the aggrieved civil servant has to prove that the Rules are inconsistent with the provisions of the parent Act or the Constitution, whereas, no such eventuality is available in the case in hand; thus, keeping in view the circumstances of the case, law does not permit us to interfere with the powers legally exercised by the Government."
The case law referred to by the appella nts' counsel having distinguishable facts is not applicable in the instant case, therefore, need not to be discussed.
The compendium of the above discussion is that we find no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.