S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Ch. Muhammad Inayat, Assistant Civil Defence Directorate, Punjab, Lahore, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Director, Civil Defence, Punjab, Lahore, Assistant Director (Admn!. Civil Defence Directorate, Punjab, Lahore, Mr. Abdus Sattar Khan, Superintendent, Civil Defence Directorate, Punjab, Lahore, and Salamat Ali, Assistant, Civil Defence Directorate. Punjab, Lahore, ac respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the appeal be accepted and orders dated 27-6-1981 and 5-7-1981, be set aside, the seniority list may be ordered to be revised in accordance with the seniority of the appellant, appellant be ordered to be allowed pro forma promotion were. f. 25-9- 1963 the date on which Noor Ahmad Malik was illegally and unlawfully promoted as Assistant and as Superintendent were. f. 7-12-1980 the date on which Syed Ahmad Mirza has been promoted.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined the Civil Defence Department as Junior Clerk on 3-9-1950, and was promoted as Senior Clerk were, f 1-3-1956. According to the seniority list prepared earlier, he was placed at Serial No. 3. However, he was superseded to the post of Assistant by persons junior to him namely Messrs Abdus Sattar Khan respondent No. 3, Malik Noor Ahmad and Syed Ahmad Mirza. These promotions took place in the years 1961, 1963 and 1966, respectively.
The appellant made representations against these promotions but no reply has been received to him so far. This representation was made on 25-1-1967 and a reminder was also sent by him on 23- 2-1970, but to no effect. The appellant made another representation on 12-10-1978, but no reply has been received so far. It has also been stated by the appellant that he remained on long leave for a period .Of 5 years and on his return learnt that Salamat Ali. Respondent No. 4, was conferred pro forma promotion but later on, it was withdrawn by the Department. The said Salamat Ali went before the Punjab Service Tribunal against this withdrawal and it was held that pro forma promotion once granted, could not be withdrawn. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, that as Salamat Ali was junior to him and he had been granted pro forma promotion, which was upheld by this Tribunal, therefore, he was also entitled to the same treatment, which was accorded to Salamat Ali. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have also perused the parawise comments submitted by the Department, against the appeal so filed by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid stress on the fact that the appellant being senior, could not be shown junior again and promotion so made in his absence when he was on long leave, would not affect his seniority and the same may be restored. On the other hand learned District Attorney has raised prelimi--nary objection that under rule 4 (c) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, no appeal lies before this Tribunal against the Departmental order/ decision at any time before 1-7-1969. With regard to the merits of the case, it has been submitted that the appellant earned adverse remarks in his A. C. Rs. Of 1964 and 1968 and these remarks were conveyed to him vide Civil Defence Directorate No FA/1-21630-31 dated 24-6-1969, against which the appellant never represented. It has been pointed out that the appellant remained on long leave for more than 7 years from 21-6- 1971 to 20-6-1976 and 22-6-1976 to 4-8-1978, except one day on 21-6-1971, therefore, he cannot agitate against the promotion of persons so promoted in his absence. It has been further argued that the appellant was superseded by the juniors Messrs Abdut Sattar and Noor Ahmad Malik, on their promotion as Assistants on 1-7-1961 and 25-9-1963, respectively on the basis of efficiency- cum-fitness and even by Syed Ahmad Mirza, who was promoted as Assistant against leave vacancy on 1-6-1966, and later on selected and initially appointed as Assistant. According to learned District Attorney, no appeal was filed by the appellant against his supersession.
5. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and find that all what has happened in the case of the appellant with regard to the promotion of his juniors, the fact of supersession and other ancillary matters happened earlier than 1969. In this manner we find lot of force in the argument of the learned District Attorney that under section 4 (c) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, no appeal would lie against the order of the decision of the Departmental Authorities made at any time before 1-7-1969. This being so, we have no hesitation to hold that this Tribunal is precluded to see into cause of action which forms the basis of the present appeal of the appellant.
6. With regard to the merits of this case, we even otherwise feel that appellant has got no case on merit. His reference to the case of Salamat Ali would be of no avail to him as the said Salamat Ali was conferred pro forma promotion and this Tribunal rightly held that the same, could not be withdrawn once it was conferred. The appellant in this case was not granted any pro forma promotion and asking the Tribunal to direct the Department to grant him this favour, we are afraid that this is also beyond the jurisdiction of this Tribunal as pro forma promotion strictly falls within the jurisdiction of Departmental Authorities, who are the best judge to see whether the person is entitled to such concession or not.
7. With regard to the grievance that certain promotions were made in the absence of the appellant when he was on long leave, we cannot find any justification of this grievance, as passage of long absence in his career, he created a situation which is to be dealt with according to merit of each candidate, when the matter came before the Department and we also find on the record that no representation, etc. Or appeal was filed by the appellant against his supersession. We have also consulted his A. C. Rs. And find a substance in the argument of the learned District Attorney that the appellant had adverse entries recorded in his A. C. Rs. For the years 1964 and 1968, and were duly conveyed to him, against which he did not seek any redress as provided to him under the rules.
8. In view of the above we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed on this score as well as due to lack of jurisdiction. There will be no order as to costs. Judgment .May be communicated to the parties.