MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER).-Messrs Barkat Ali, Ghulam Hussain, Fateh Muhammad and Muhammad Siddique Foresters have filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal -Act 1974 in which they have impleaded the Chief Conservator of Forests, Planning and Evaluation, Punjab, Central Zone; Lahore, Conservator of Forests, Lahore Circle Lahore and the Divisional Forest Officer, Gujranwala/ Sheikhupura Forest Division, Gujranwala as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal they have prayed that the Office Order No. 54/OFL, dated 11-12-1982 be set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were working as Forest Guards in Gujranwala/Sheikhupura Forest Division. In order to fill in the posts of Foresters by promotion, Divisional Foresi Officer, respondent No. 3 formed a Departmental Promotion Committee consisting of Mr. Nasrullah Khan Aziz, Manager, Government Jallo Rosin and Turpentine Factory, Lahore, Malik Muhammad Sharif, F. R. Range Forest Officer, Sheikhupura as members alongwith himself including as chairman: The Committee held a meeting on 16-6-1982 and recommended eight Forest Guards including the appellants for promotion to the rank of Foresters. In. The light of the recommendations of this Departmental Promotion Committee, its recommendees including the appellants were promoted to the rank of Foresters in N.P.S. 5 against the existing vacancies on the terms and conditions mentioned in the order issued vide Divisional Forest Officer, Gujranwala/Sheikhupura Forest Division Gujranwala No. 203/CSD, dated 28-6-1982. An anonymous complaint was received by the Conservator of Forests, Lahore Circle, Lahore against the Divisional Forest Officer, Gujranwala/Sheikhupura alleging commission of irregularities and corruptions with regard to the promotion of the Forest Guards as Foresters even by tempering the seniority of some of the Guards, for promoting them for illegal considerations: This complaint was enquired into by Ch. Abdul Ghani, Conservator of Forests, Headquaters, Office of the Chief Conservator of Forests (Planning and Development) Punjab, Central Zone, Lahore who submitted his report. In his report the said Ch. Abdul Ghani, concluded that the promotion of the appellants and his other colleagues have not been made fairly, impartially and strictly on merits due to ulterior motive. This report was examined by the respondents and it came to light that the Divisional Forest Officer, Oujranwala/Sheikhupura Forest Division was not competent to constitute a Departmental Promotion Committee of his own accord and Mr. Nasrullah Khan Aziz, Manager, Government Jallo Rosin Factory could not have been nominated as a Member of the said Committee. Consequently through the impugned order dated 11-12-1982, the proceedings of the invalid Departmental Promotion Committee constituted by the Divisional Forest Officer were quashed and consequential order of promotion of the appellants dated 28-6-1982, was also set aside. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that they were duly promoted to the rank of Foresters by the competent authority on the recommendations of the duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee in accordance with the Rules and no locus poenitentiae was left with the respondents to cancel the orders of the promotion dated 28-6-1982, by issuing the impugned order, substan--tiating this argument it has been submitted that the Divisional Forest Officer was the competent authority to promote the appellants, who issued the order on 28-6-1982, which was duly conveyed to the appellants, was implemented in letter and spirit and it created vested rights to hold the rank of Foresters. Thus, the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has controverted the arguments addressed on behalf of the appellants and. Has submitted that according to section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servant Act, the appellant had a right to file a representation to the Chief Conservator of Forests which they have not availed, as such the appeal is not competent under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974. On merits it has been argued on behalf of the respondents that in each Department or Office of the Government there is to be one or more of the Departmental Promotion Committees or Departmental Selection Committees as laid down in rule 4 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) rules 1974. According to sub- rule (4) of the said rule the composition of these Committees and the procedure to be observed by them, is to be determined by the Government. As such the Divisional Forest Officer is not competent to constitute a Departmental Promotion Committee and- nominate its members of his own choice. According to the learned District Attorney, the Committee so formed by the Divisional Forest Officer was in utter disregards of the orders of the Government contained in letter No. SOE- II-,2-1-81, dated 22125-1-1981 ; because Mr. Nasrullah Khan Aziz, Manager, Government Jallo Rosin Factory could not have been appointed as a Member because he was not serving as territorial Divisional Forest Officer nor his headquarters was located nearest to Gujranwala/Sheikhupura Forest Division. As such the Committee so formed by the Divisional Forest Officer was made in violation of the Rules and its recommendations are void and have no legal sanctity. Thus he has concluded that the impugned order has been passed competently and in accordance with the law by the respondents. These illegal orders do not create any right in favour of the appellants.
5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have perused the record. The crucial issue in this case would be whether the Departmental Promotion Committee so formed by the Divisional Forest Officer was formed validly and in accordance with the rules. In order to resolve this issue we have to refer to the relevant provision of rule 4 of the Punjab Civil Servants Appointment and Con--ditions of Service) Rules 1974 which are reproduced hereunder :-
(1) In each Department or office of the Government, there shall be one or more Departmental Promotion Committees and Departmental Selection Committees.
(2)
(3) Each such Committee or Board shall consist of at least three members one of whom shall be appointed as Chairman.
(4) The composition of such Committees and Boards and the procedure to be observed by such Committees and Boards shall be determined by Government.
(5) The appointing authority or its representative shall be ex officio member of the Board making selection (6 to 10) ... . .........
The perusal of the above quoted rules reveal that a Departmental Promotion Committee is to be constituted by the Government only and the appointing authority has to act according to the recommendations of this Committee. Annexure "D" filed by the respondents is an Office Order issued by the Government of the Punjab, Forestry and Wildlife Department vide No. SOE-II-2-1/81, dated 22/25-1-1981 through this order, Government of the Punjab has constituted the Departmental- Selection Committees for the purpose of making recommendations for appointment by initial recruitment as well as to act as Departmental Promotion Committee for all posts in Grades 1 to 15 with immediate effect from the date of issue of the order. According to this order the designation of the two other Members of the Committee has been mentioned as under :-
(1) One Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial) or Working Plan whose Headquarters are nearest;
(2) Senior Most S. D. F. O:/Forest Ranger of the Division concerned.
While the appointing authority has been designated as a Chairman of the Committee. Thus, it is apparent that Mr. Nasrullah Khan Aziz; Manager, Government Jallo Rosin and Turpentine Factory, Lahore could not be nominated as a Member of the Committee, as such the proceedings of this invalid Committee are void, and without jurisdiction. Thus, its recommendations do not create any valuable right in favour of its recommendees including the appellants. As such we hold that the impugned orders passed by the respondent No. 2 are in accordance with the law and we cannot take any exception to it. With regard to the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the respondents, we find a lot of force in it. Admittedly the impugned order has been passed by the Conservator of Forests, Lahore Circle, Lahore on 11-12-1982. The appellants do not claim to have filed any representation to the Chief Conservator of Forests, the next higher authority as required under section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974. According to section 4 (i), proviso (b) this appeal is not maintainable because the appellants have not preferred an such representation. Thus we hold that the present appeal is also not maintainable.
6. In view of the above detailed analysis, we do not find any force in this appeal which is dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.