FIAZ AHMAD ANJUM JANDRAN, J. Through instant Intra Court Appeal, appellants impugn consolidated judgment dated 19.02.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge-in-Chambers, whereby W.P. No. 1777 of 2020 alongwith connected W .P. No. 2135, 2226 & 2368 of 2020 were dismissed by observing as under:- "20. If this court were to order antedated promotion of the petitioners it would in fact be overriding the applicable criteria for promotion prescribed for the employees of OGDCL and would be promulgating a new judge-made rule that the only applicable criterion to be applied while considering the petitioners for promotion is whether or not they have completed 5 years of mandatory service in a certain grade. Such exercise of judicial review powers cannot be countenanced.
21. The petitioners have failed to make out a case for illegality , irrationality or procedural impropriety . In absence of which this Court cannot exercise its judicial review powers under Article 199 of the Constitution. An antedated promotion is a promotion nevertheless and includes a component of subjective evaluation to be undertaken by the employer . As aforesaid this Court has no authority to undertake subjective evaluation of the competence or merit of the petitioners or to declare that evaluation of such competence or merit of an employee need not to be undertaken and promotions be awarded to them nevertheless in disregard of the company' s promotion criteria. The petitioners have failed to make out a case for any procedural impropriety or breach of applicable rules or discrimination or malice. These petitions are, therefore, dismissed, with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by each petitioner to the respondent company ."
2. Essential and relevant facts for the disposal of instant appeal are that appellants through the subject Writ- Petitions pray for antedated promotions in various Executive Groups i.e. EG from the respective dates while placing reliance upon cases of "Zulfiqar-ul- Husnain and 19 v, Oil & Gas Development Corporation (2003 SCMR 1115) and "Abid Kamal v, O,G,D,C,L, through its Managing Director and others (CPLA No.1538/2008 decided on 13.10.2009) on the claim of having requisite length of five years' servic e in respective groups, in terms of O.G.D.C. Service Regulations, 1994 (Regulations 1994). The learned Single Judge-in-Chambers after surveying case law on the subject proceeded to dismiss the petitions in terms noted in Para-1 above, being assailed through instant appeal.
3. Learned counsel argued that the appellants fulfill the mandatory requirement of five years service in terms of Regulations 1994, which provides routine promotion in next Grade after completion of every five years, therefore, entitled to be promoted in the next respective grades.
4. Heard, record perused.
5. The prayer of the learned counsel is not as simple as argued for the reason that it is not the time span of five years alone but the other factors i.e. availability of vacancies, seniority position, fitness besides PERs etc. etc. are also essential to be looked into. These requirements are mandatory and should be fulfilled simultaneously to consider an employee for promotion, therefore, contention to this ef fect is misconceived.
6. It is the case of the appellants as emerged through Para-5 of the instant appeal that their two colleagues Nasir Warriach and Ali Asghar were promoted in EG-III w.e.f. 01.07.1999, in EG-IV w.e.f. 01.07.2004 with further promotion in EG-V in December , 2009 but the appellants have been denied the same benefit. It is thus obvious that Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) had been convened many times. The learned counsel was emphatically confronted that as to whethe r the outcome of the meetings of the D.P.C, being adverse in nature had ever been assailed by the appellants, the reply was in explicit negative. This aspect brings the case of the appellants hit by laches as the promotions statedly due way back in 1994, 1999 are being claimed with inordinate delay in the year 2012 on ground of having requisite length of five years alone in exclusion of other criteria under the Regulations 1994.
7. The other important aspect of the matter is that in case promotions are ordered to be made w.e.f. 1994 and so on, it would definitely not only hamper the seniority position but would also open a floodgate of like litigation and that, too, in derogation of rules on the subject.
8. Undoubtedly , promotion itself is not vested right and cannot be asked for on the basis of distorted interpretation of the Rules on the subject that clearly provides criteria of "seniority-cum-fitness" and not the "seniority" alone.
9. Rule 5 and 32 of Regulations 1994 provides method of appointment by promotion. Rule-5 stipulates that promotion to all posts in the Corporation shall be on the recommendations of the appropriate Departmental Promotion Committee, should not be in the manner except in accordance with the criteria, it shall not be claimed as a matter of right, notwithstanding qualification and experience and in terms of Rules 32(3) promotion shall be made on the basis of merits, fitness and seniority in accordance with the criteria.
10. The Rule position ibid is specific, unambiguous leaving no room of misinterpretation. The appellants, having status of employees of the Corporation, of course, are bound to follow the Rules and Regulations of their Employer and it being an administrative matter cannot be interfered with while exercising constitutional jurisdiction.
11. It is beyond the mandate of this Court to indulge in the exercise, exclusively meant for the competent authority to be conducted being the best judge in their department. The fabric of an administration demands strict observance of Rules and Procedure and it cannot be brought under judicial scrutiny in absence of lack of mandatory legal requirement, procedural impropriety and perversity or biasness of the competent authority .
12. The case of the appellants have been examined from every angle and it is found that the appellants have not been able to make out a case warrant ing interference in the impugned judgment which, in the backdrop of observations recorded above, is well reasoned and depicts true import of the ratio set in the referred case laws besides rules on the subject and does not call for any interference. Consequently , instant appeal fails and is dismissed in limine . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.