' S. HAPEEZ-UR-RBHMAN (MEMBER)..--This appeal by Zafar Yasin, Accountant in a District Accounts Office, and 11 other Accountants and Sub-Accountants in various District Accounts Offices, impugns the letter dated 7th November, 1977 issued by Secretary, Finance Department, to the commissioners of Divisions laying down that only those persons would be eligible for promotion as Accountant who have passed the new examination prescribed by the Punjab S. A. S. Examination Regulation, 1975, and that the previous qualification would afford no claim for promotion. Also impugned is the Finance Department's notification of 1st January. 1978 allowing NPS-16 to only those Treasury Accountants who have qualified the above-mentioned examination, and the order of 22nd March, 1978 issued by Finance Department rejecting the representation made by the General Secretary of the Punjab Subordinate Treasury and Accounts Service Association seeking exemption from the new departmental examination for those appellants and others who had already qualified the examination provided by the Subordinate Treasury and Accounts Service (Accountants) Departmental Examination Rules, 1967, framed under the provisions of rules 8 of the Subordinate Treasury and Accounts Service Rules of 1962. The appellants have impleaded the Secretary, S&GAD1 Department, being Secretary in-charge of the Department which issues statutory rules covering the rights claimed by them. For facility, we shall refer to the examination held under the Subordinate Treasury and Accounts Service Departmental Examination Rules. 1967, as the Old Examination and the one prescribed by the Punjab S.A.S. Examination Regulations, 1975, as the New Examination.
2. The parties were heard and the various documents filed by them in support of their respective stand gone through with the assistance of the counsel. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Secretary Finance's letter of 7th November, 1977 abridged the rights of the appellants who had duly qualified the Old Examination and who should not now be required to pass the New Examination in order to get promoted and to be inducted into NPS-16. The case of the appellants was that they were governed by the West Pakistan Subordinate Treasuries and Accounts Service Rules, 1962. Under these Rules the Old Examination Rules were promulgated in 1967 which, inter alia, provided that no person shall be confirmed in service unless he successfully completes the prescribed training and passes the prescribed examination, and that the passing of the examination would be necessary in order to be promoted to a post in the direct line of promotion. This practice had been followed by the Government and the respondent department over the years, and the examination results were duty notified on 29th July, 1972, 9th January, 1973, 24th August, 1973 and 29th November, 1974 showing the names of appellants and others who had qualified the examination. Resultantly, appellants Nos. 1 to 5 were promoted, being the persons qualified for the post of Accountants. Then, suddenly, the Government decided as evidenced by the impugned letter of 7th November, 1977 that the Old Examination would no longer hold good for promotion purposes and that all those who sought promotion to the post of Treasury Accountant in the Revised Pay Scale (NPS-16) would have to qualify the New Examination which was of a standard higher than the Old Examination and for which the Punjab Subordinate Treasury and Accounts Service Examination Regulations, 1975, were promulgated. By a notification issued on 3rd April, 1975 the Secretary, SGA&I. Department, amended rule 5 of the Service Rules, 1962, providing under the amended rule 5 (I) (a) that vacancies to the posts of Accountants would be filled by selection from among Assistant Accountants and Accounts Clerks (Sub-Accountants) who have passed the prescribed examination. The appellants fulfilled this qualification and were thus eligible for promotion to the posts of Accountants, having already qualified the prescribed departmental examination, i,e, the Old Examination, but the respondent department held that in this case the prescribed departmental examination was the New Examination and not the Old Examination and that those who, did not pass the New Examination would be placed as Accountants in NPS-11 instead of in NPS-16. It was also contended on behalf of the appellants that their representation in this behalf should have been considered by the Governor, being the competent authority under the 1962 Service Rules, but the representation was dealt with and rejected at the departmental level.
The plea of the appellants was that they were duly qualified for promotion as Treasury Accountants in NPS-16 on the strength of having passed the Old Examination and that the requirement of passing the New Examination was illegal and against their service conditions and should be declared as such, because this requirement, could not be imposed with retrospective effect.
3. This position taken by the appellants was strongly contested on behalf of the respondent departments by the learned Government Pleader. It was submitted that the W. P. Subordinate Treasury & Accounts Service Departmental Examination Rules, 1967, framed under rule 8 of the W.F.
Subordinate Treasury & Accounts Service Rules, 1962, are for confirmation only and the qualification acquired under these rules affords no claim for promotion. On the other hand, the Punjab SAS Examination regulations, promulgated in October, 1975 are specifically for promotion and derive authority from rule 5 of the 1962 Service Rules, as amended by notification issued by the S.G.A.&I.
Department on 2nd April, 1975. The assertion of the appellants that Government was giving retrospective effect to the Rules made by it in this behalf was not true because the Rules were for confirmation and not promotion.
' Having heard the parties we find that the as of the appellants hinges on the fact whether the 1967 Regulations prescribing the Old Examination were for confirmation or whether the passing of the Old Examination qualified a person for promotion by right. We have given our considered attention to the matter in the light of the arguments advanced by the parties and the wordings of the relevant rules, notifications, etc. The relevant rule 3 of the 1967 Departmental Examination Rules reads as follows:-
3. Confirmation of probationers.-No probationer shall be confirmed in a post unless be passes an examination conducted by the Commission in the subjects specified in Schedule I in accordance with the syllabus mentioned in Schedule II.
' We have gone through the entire Rules but find no mention of any provision which makes passing of any examination as condition precedent for promotion. Similarly, in the 1962 Service Rules the relevant rule 8(4) says :- 8.-(4). No person shall be confirmed in the service unless he successfully completes training and passes departmental examination as may be prescribed by Government from time to time.
' Again we have gone through the entire Rules but nowhere is there any mention that any examination has been prescribed the passing of which would entitle a person to he promoted in the service. On the other hand, the amended rule 5 clearly lays down the following:- 5(1)(a). Vacancies in the posts of Accountants shall be filled by selection from among the members of service holding the posts of Assistant Accountants and Account s Clerks in the Division where the vacancies occur who have passed such examination as may be prescribed,
5. We were told by the appellants that they were aware of these provisions but the fact of the matter was that, all along, the Government had treated the passing of the Old Examination as a qualification for promotion. They drew our attention to the identical promotion orders passed by the Commissioner, Sargodha Division, in respect of Ch. Zafar Yasin on 22nd July, 1973 and Malik Muhammad Aslam on 3rd September, 1973, stating that since he had qualified the W. P.
Subordinate Treasury and Accounts Service (Accountants) Departmental Examination he is promoted and appointed to officiate as Accountant. In addition, we were shown minutes of the meeting of the Divisional Selection/Promotion Committee for Treasury Establishment of Sargodha Division held on 28th June, 1976 which approved certain persons for promotion as Accountants on the basis of their having qualified the (Old) Departmental Examination. Their contention was that promotion on the strength of clearing the Old Examination was an established practice in the Service and had been followed by the Commissioners and the respondent Finance Department.
This may be so, because so far as the actual process is concerned, any person who qualified the Old Examination was considered to be eligible for going up further in service, but so far as legal sanction was concerned the two sets of rules i,e, the 1962 Service Rules and the 1967 Examination Rules only provided for confirmation on the basis of qualifying the Old Examination. Perhaps in actual practice there was not a very distinct line drawn between confirmation and promotion in the context of the Old Examination but once the New Examination Rules came into force, ground was left for this indistinctness and whoever aimed to be promoting regularly as Accountant was bound to take the New Examination. Thus the practice wherein confirmation and promotion had become almost synonymous was to end at once and no person could be promoted as Accountant without passing the New Examination, except of course where the promotion was temporary or stopgap As provided in the Rules. There is no question of giving retrospective effect to the New Examination Rules they became applicable to everyone whether he had passed the Old Examination or not. This matter has also to be seen in the light of revision of the pay-scale of Accountants. It is reasonable that anyone aspirin for the new pay-scale, i,e, NPS-16 should be required to pass the New Examination which is of a standard higher than the Old Examination, because the question of better professional proficiency is involved for the higher scale.
6. In view of the above discussion, we hold that there is nothing illegal or irregular in the appellants being required to qualify the New Examination. The appeal is consequently dismissed.