EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal has arisen out of the judgment dated 10.4.2015 of the Service Tribunal whereby it dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the conclusion arrived at by the departmental appellate authority .
2. This case was heard on 1.3.2017. W e having heard summed it up as under:-- "Arguments addressed by the learned ASC for the petitioner was that since Shagufta Shahjehan was a bolt from the blue on account of her induction through transfer , the petitioner having been appointed earlier was to rank senior to her but since she was promoted to the next higher scale in 1991 and the petitioner failed to challenge her promotion for more than two decades, we don't think a matter past and closed could be reopened through a belated challenge. The learned ASC when faced with this situation switched over to another spring board by submitting that two years before his retirement the petitioner worked against a seat in the next higher scale on current charge basis in spite of the fact that a seat was vacant and it was to be filled by promotion. This argument touched our hearts but when we asked the learned Addl. A.G. to apprise us about it, he asked for time.
Relist for 03.03.2017 ."
3. The learned Additional Advocate General Punjab and Muhammad Tahir, Director Admin EPA appearing on behalf of the respondents stated at the bar that petitioner was given current charge of a post in the next higher scale in 2006 but he could not be promoted to the said post for want of completion of the requisite training and completion of PERs. He next contended that petitioner completed the requisite training for promotion but again he could not be considered for promotion for want of completion of the PERs.
4. We have gone through the record carefully and considered the submissions of the learned ASC for the petitioner as well as the learned Addl. A.G. for the respondents.
5. Once the petitioner completed the requisite training for promotion he was to be considered in the light of the entries in the PERs particularly when vacancy for the next higher scale was available. Late arrival or incompleteness of the PERs could not be debited in the account of the petitioner as it was not his domain to complete the same. In this view of the matter , there is no harm and nothing terrible is likely to happen if the case of the petitioner for proforma promotion is considered in the light of the entries in his PERs from the date he completed the requisite training. W e, thus, convert this petition into appeal and dispose it of accordingly .