S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Messrs Ajmal Tanveer and Masud Ahmad Khokhar have filed two separate appeals Nos. 198/600 of 1980 an& 141/609 of 1980, before us, in which they have impleaded Government of the Punjab through its Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore Messrs Muhammad Afzal Qureshi, Mian Shan Ahmad, Abdul Wahid Gil, Muhammad. Afzal, Muhammad Azhar, Abdul Jalil Qureshi and Muhammad Farooq as respondents.
2. By virtue of these appeals they have prayed that notification dated 8-1-1980 be set aside and notification dated 27-9-1975, be restored.
3. As the respondents as well as the prayer in both the appeals are common with common Counsel Mr. Masud Ahmad Riaz, therefore, we will decide these two appeals by our single judgment.
4. Brief facts of the case are that Governor of the Punjab was pleased to promote the following eight persons as Principals, Government Training Commercial Institutes, in Punjab vide its notification dated 6-6-1974 :-
1. Mr. Khurshid Alam Bhatti.
2. Syed Zafar Hussain.
3. Syed Anwar Hassan Naqvi.
4. Mr. Masud Ahmad Khokhar (appellant).
5. Mr. Ajmal Tanveer (appellant).
6. Mr. Mubashir Ahmad.
7. Mr. Hamayat Yar Khan.
8. Mr. Habib Ahmad Malik.
Similarly the Governor vide his notification dated 27-9-1975, was pleased to approve the pro forma promotion of the appellants alongwith one Mubashir Ahmad from 6-8-66, 14-9-68, and 4-8-1968 respectively. Aggrie--ved by the notification of 1975 by which pro forma promotion was granted to the appellants. One Shan Muhammad one of their colleagues made repre--sentation and was responsible for initiation of the case which resulted in the impugned notification dated 8-1-1980. By this notification the Governor of the Punjab was pleased to withdraw his earlier notification dated 27-9-1975 and 8-12-1975, regarding pro forma promotion of the appellants as well as three others namely Mubashir Ahmad, Hadayat Yar Khan and Habib Ahmad Malik. The result of this notification was that the appellants were considered promoted from 6-6-1974 as originally ordered vide notification dated 6-6-1974. Hence these appeals.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that once the case of the appellants was thoroughly examined and was duly processed, it was only then that the notification dated 27-9- 1975, was notified and appellants were awarded pro forma promotion. According to learned counsel by virtue of said notification it was the appellants vested rights to hold the posts of Principal were. f. 14-9-1968 and 6-8-1968, respectively, therefore, Government was not empowered to rescind such notification and to withdraw the said pro forma promotion so earlier granted by it.
This, according to the learned counsel, was against the principle of locus poenitentiae as well as an act illegal and bad in law. Learned Counsel has informed this Tribunal that the appellants immediately represented to respondent No. 1 against the notification dated 8-1-1980 vide representation dated 27-1-1980,- but the said representation had been rejected vide order dated 9-2-1980.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the lengthy arguments advanced by both the parties in support of their claims in which they have recounted the qualification and disqualifications of each other, but the crucial point for determination before us is, without going into the merits or demerits of the parties as under: Whether this Tribunal can interfere with the grant of pro forma promotion so granted oar the Government to a Civil Servant and once it is so granted and then rescinded, can it interfere with the Government orders by which the earlier pro forma promotion has been withdrawn ?
To answer this issue we- refer to ourselves to section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act- 1974, clause (b). The reading of this clause of the Act reveals that no appeal shall lie to this Tribunal against the order or decision of departmental authority in matter of promotion or determining the fitness of a person appointed to a post In view of the above we are c; the considered opinion that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere or to sit over a judgment upon the decision of departmental authority in matters of promotions. We are of the confirmed opinion that pro forma promotion would also fall within the ambit of promotion.
8. With regard to the second limb of the question whether this Tribunal can strike down the latter withdrawal of the earlier promotion order we are fully satisfied that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction in this respect also. In this way we rely on section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1971, which empowers the Government to add, amend, vary or rescind any notification, order, rule or by-laws so issued.
The scope of this section bestowed powers on the authority to rescind, vary, amend or add its earlier orders.
9. In the present case what has happened is that the Government/ Governor in its wisdom, conferred pro forma promotion on the appellants but later on, when certain salient features of the case were brought to light, the case of the appellants, were duly processed, but the same was with--drawn on the well-considered advice of Services General Admn. And Information Department as well as Finance Department and Law Depart--ment. So it cannot be said that the withdrawal so made vide notification of 1980, was an arbitrary exercise without taking into consideration all the pros and cons of the case.
10. The result is we proceed to dismiss these appeals for lack of jurisdiction. However, the parties will be at their own costs.