This is an appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 and challenges the order dated 3.4.2017 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. It was concluded by the learned Single Judge that the criteria for qualifying marks fixed as 64 for promotion had not been enacted by a proper promotion policy and on this basis, it was held that the respondent No.1 herein was entitled to be promoted.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and do not find the impugned order to be sustainable. It may be stated that the impugned order was passed on a direction issued by this Court. The basis of the impugned order has been stated as under in the impugned order: "However , we regret to state that you could not earn minimum qualifying marks which were fixed as 64 for promotion from OG-1 1 to OG-1 in 1999.
Similarly , you also could not qualify the promotion in 2002 due to securing insufficient marks i.e. 85 against 100 minimum required marks. However , you promoted as OG-1 in 2004 and as AVP in 2009."
3. It is common ground between the parties that the respondent secured 55 marks. Also there is no doubt that the qualifying marks for promotion were 50. However , what the impugned order seeks to convey is that for seeking promotion the qualifying marks amongst the candidates who were eligible to be promoted was fixed as 64. Thus, the necessary inference was that the last candidate who was to be promoted had secured 64 marks and there were no more vacancies available 'on which further promotions could be made and since the respondent herein was at a lower rung, he was not promoted therefore. It was not that the respon dent was not eligible for being considered for promotion, for the two concepts are distinct and separate. Eligibility for promotion does not mean the same as a vested right to be promoted under all circumstances. This is also evident from the promotion policy which has been annexed with the main constitutional petition by the respondent himself. That also envisages that the criteria which lays down the minimum condition for eligibility does not imply that those who meet them become entitled to be promoted necessarily . This is couched in the promotion policy for the year 1999. Further it has been provided in that policy that: In order to ensure operational requirement and Regional representation, vacancies in Officer and Executive cadres (excluding SEVP; EVP and SVP) will be allocated to various Regions/Head Office on pro rata basis."
4. Therefore, in order to ensure operational requirements and regional representations, vacancies have been, allocated under the policy to various regions/ head offices on pro rata basis. It clearly shows that a limited number of vacancies existed on which promotions of the officers can be made and for the purpose a minimum criteria has been laid down. The respondents failed to meet that criteria and did not obtain the qualifying marks for being promoted to one of those vacancies. This is despite the fact that he had qualifyin g marks for being eligible to be considered for promotion. Thus in our opinion the impugned order passed by the competent authority of the appellant was proper and based on reasonable grounds and the terms of the promotion policy in vogue.
5. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed and the impugned IC order is set aside.