A. O. RAZI-UR-REHMAN (MEMBER).-The appellant, who joined the erstwhile Bureau of National Reconstruction on June 13, 1962, as an Upper Division Clerk, selected by the Department after written examination and interview of more than 50 candidates, was promoted as Assistant, on 11-2- 1965, in the same Department, by then re-designated as Bureau of National Research and Reference. The probationary period of one year was also curtailed by six months on account of his meritorious work. Later, on March 12, 1979, he was promoted as Superintendent (Grade-16). This promotion was made by the competent authority, after it had given approval to the recommendation made in this behalf by a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 12-3-1979. Some time after this, his services were placed at the disposal of the Press Information Department, for appointment as Assistant Administrative Officer in the same grade, and he assumed charge of his new office with effect from August 9, 1979. The Gazette notification pertaining to this is reproduced below :-- "Press Information Department Government of Pakistan Islamabad August 19, 1979 NOTIFICATION No. F. 23 (14831/79-A.-In the pursuance of orders continued in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting's Notification . No. 2 (1):75-AD-I, dated August 11, 1979, Mr. I. H. Naseem, Superintendent (Grade-16) in the Directorate of Research and Reference assumed the charge of the post of Assistant Administrative Officer (Grade-16) in the Press Information Department with effect from the forenoon of August, 19 79.
(Sd.)
MIRZA ANWER BEYG for Principal Information Officer"
3. After he had served as Assistant Administrative Officer in the Press Information Department for 1 year and 3 months, he was relieved of his duties in the Press Information Department with effect from November 9, 1980, and directed to report for duty to the Deputy Secretary, Administra--tion, of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Islamabad. It appears that he was verbally asked by the Deputy Secretary, Administration to report for duty in his parent department, The parent department did not give any posting to the appellant for about 3 months, but, by an office order dated 4-2-1981, he was reverted to his substantive post of Assistant in the Directorate of Research and Reference, with effect from 9-1-1-1980. As this order amounted to demotion, the appellant appealed against it to the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the appellate authority in the matter, on February 16, 1981. The Secretary rejected the same, vide Ministry's Memo, dated 23-6-1981. However, since he had not received the reply of the appellate authority within 90 days of his appeal, he came up before the Tribunal on 10-6-1981 which was within the prescribed time limit.
3. The appeal, having been admitted on 25-10-1981, came up for regular hearing, on 12-5-1983 is being disposed of by this order.
4. The appellant appeared in person and pleaded his case himself. The learned standing counsel for the State, representing respondents Nos1 to 3. Appearing alongwith a departmental representative, defended the said respondents, while respondent No. 4, who tiled his written objections presented his case himself. Respondent No. 5 did not appear in spite of notice and was, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.
5. The main defence was put forward in the written objections filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and in the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the State ht the time of final hearing.
Respondent No. 4 defended his position by stating that his promotion to the job of Superintendent was justified on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness for tile job and, therefore, it could not be impugned. So far as the promotion of this respondent is concerned, the appellant has not challenged it. What he had challenged was his own reversion to the post of Assistant, after he had already been promoted about two years earlier. If the reversion of the appellant is found to be in order, the question of the prospective relative seniorities of this respondent and the appellant a Superintendent would be relevant. If, however, the demotion is found to have been unjustified, the seniorities of the two would count from the dates from which they were respectively approved for promotion.
6. After having, heard the parties in great detail and perused the relevant documents, including the objections filed by respondents 4 and 5, we have come to the conclusion that the appellant has been the victim of hostility and gross injuries has been done to him wilfully by respondents 1 and 3, through an act which has no justification either in law or in morality.
7. The appellant was promoted in a regular manner by the compe--tent authority. It may be noted that this promotion hart been ordered on the basis of the recommendation made by the Departmental Promotion Committee, who, after careful consideration of the claims of all other eligible candidates, including respondents 4 and 5, who were senior to ton appellant as Assistant, lead recommended the appellant for the ground that he was the most suitable of the 5 candidates considered for promotion. This decision was arrived at by the Departmental Promotion Committee after assessm ent of their merits through interview and perusal of their service records in this connection, the Committee observed : "Mr. I. H. Naseem who has a pretty long experience of over 14 years as Assistant and who possesses an excellent knowledge of office procedure, was the most suitable for the job". Even if such a recommendation had not been made by the Departmental Promotion Committee, but the competent authority had approved his promotion and the Promo-- tion had been given effect to and been in force or more than one year and 8 months, the reversion of the appellant to his former post of Assistant could not have been legally upheld, unless the said reversion had been ordered because of non-availability of a post of Superintendent or on account of disciplinary action taken according to rules. In the instant case, the post, against which the appellant had been promoted, had not been abolished and, in fact, respondent No. 4 was holding that post in the absence of the appellant during his deputation to the Press Information Department. By all canons of logic, and in accordance with the instruc--tions of the Government relating to reversion from selection posts, on the return of the appellant from deputation, respondent No. 4, and not the appellant, should have been reverted when the vacancy caused by the return of the appellant terminated. In this connection, a reference of the Government instructions contained in O. M. No. 54/10/51-M.E., dated the 31st August, 1951 should be helpful. The relevant portions are quoted below :---- "Reversion from selection posts.-(1) The views of Ministries/Divisions were invited on the following points :-
(a) ***
(b) Whether reversions from or confirmations in selection posts should follow the order in which the persons concerned were promoted to the posts in question (i.e. The candidates first appointed to officiate in the selection post should be confirmed when a permanent vacancy occurs and the candidate last appointed to officiate, reverted when a vacancy terminates) or fresh selection should be made from amongst persons officiat--ing in the selection post each time a permanent vacancy occurs or a vacancy terminates.
The question has been considered in the light of the replies received from Ministries and the opinion of the Federal Public Service Commission and the following instructions are issued.
(2) ***
(3) As regards (b), reversions should be made in the reverse order of promotion and confirmation should follow the order of seniority in the grade concerned. In other words, there should be no fresh selection either for the purpose of reversion or for confirmation."
8. On the moral plane also, the action of respondents 1 and 2, in demoting the appellant, is assailable for the reason that, in spite of the fact there was nothing adverse or unsatisfactory reported against the appellant during the period he worked in the higher- post, he was relieved of the higher appointment, on his return from foreign service.
9. In the written objections filed on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 3, great stress has been laid on the alleged seniority of other. Assistants, in--cluding respondents Nos. 4 and 5 over the appellant as Assistant. Reference to seniority as Assistant is not relevant in the context of this case, because the promotion of the appellant was not based on his alleged seniority, but on his merit as an Assistant, which was considered by the D. P. C. As superior to that of all the other eligible Assistant and, then most being a selection post, the recommendation of the D. P. C. Was made on the basis of merit and not merit-cum- seniority. However, even if the promotions were to be on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, but the D. P. C. Had recommended the appellant and, the recommendation having been approved by the competent authority, promotion had been given to the appellant, it could not be taken away arbitrarily, as was done by the Department on the reversion of the appellant from the Press Information Department.
10. In this connection, it is interesting to note that, in reply to the appeal against his demotion, preferred before the Secretary, Ministry .Of Information and Broadcasting, he had been informed that he was demoted because the recommendation made by the D. P. C. In its meeting held, on 12- 3-1979 "was found to be against rules", and; therefore, in its meeting held on 11-1-1981, it reviewed its earlier recommendation and suggested the appellant's promotion only after three others.
Assistants senior to him had been promoted. It is strange that a recommendation of this nature should I have been made by the D. P. C., because` the appellant had already been promoted about two years earlier and the question of considering him four promotion just now could not have been taken up in the meeting held on 11-1-1981. The appellant's demotion, therefore, on the basis of the D.
P. Cs.' recommendation, dated 11-1-1981, becomes an act of absurdity devoid of any logic or meaning.
11. A perusal of the minutes of the D. P. C. Meeting held on I 1-1-1981, read alongwith those of the meeting held on 28-9-1980, shows that the D. P. C. Took upon itself to review the decision, taken two years earlier, which was final and unconditional and could not be reconsidered or examined on any ground whatsoever. We are unable to understand under what provision of rules this meeting of the D. P. C. Could sit in judgment over the recommendation of the previous D. P. C. And arrogate to itself the right to criticise the said recommendation. Apart from the fact that the observations of this meeting in paragraph two of the minutes are self-contradictory, inasmuch as, while it was stated that "the post of Superintendent is a selection post, which under the Government instruc-- tions is to be filled entirely on merit, seniority playing its part only when other things are equal, by promotion from amongst the eligible candidates of the Directorate", it at the same time, observed that lathe seniority in the case of Mr. Janjua was to some extent ignored", there is no provision of law under which the D. I'. C. Could consider once again for promotion of a candidate already recommended for such promotion and actually approved by the competent authority and promotion on the basis of the said recommendation.
12. Another strange thing that has come to our notice in this case is that some statements made in the written objection filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are riot in accordance with the actual facts. In the written objections, against paragraph 4, the following observations have been made:--- "2. After reviewing the case, the following irregularities were found to have been committed in making promotion of the appellant.
(i) The Departmental Promotion Committee had no right to drop from consideration for promotion eligible candidates according to seniority list and ignore claim of Mr. N. H. Niswana, Assistant, first on the List simply because he was then serving in a mission abroad.
(ii) In preparing panel of approved candidates, the Departmental Promotion Committee was not competent to alter the' order of inter, se seniority of candidates. This resulted in promotion of a junior man (the appellant) against a regular vacancy of Superintendent (Grade-16) and senior man (Mr. Muhammad Ramzan) against a leave vacancy of Administrative Officer (Grade-16).
Reference to the minutes of the meeting held on 12-3-1979 shows that the D. P. C. Did not drop any of the eligible candidates and that it did riot ignore the claim of Mr. N. H. Niswana. Actually, the D.P.C. Examined the A.C.Rs. Of Mr. Niswana, alongwith those of 4 other Assistants. It is also observed that the said meeting did not prepare a panel of approved candi--dates and, therefore, there is no question of altering the inter se seniority of the candidates. Since the selection was on the basis of merit, the Com--mittee decided to recommend Mr. I. H. Naseem for promotion to the post of Superintendent, as it considered him the most suitable for the job". It is not very creditable that such glaring and deliberate misstatements should have been made in the written statement filed before us. The authorities of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting owe it to themselves and to the Administration in general to look into the matter and bring to book those responsible.
13. The action of the D. P. Cain going beyond its jurisdiction has been defended on the ground that this has the approval of the competent authority, who was obliged to order the rectification of the error of the earlier D. P. C. We are unable to appreciate how the competent authority, which had approved the recommendation of the D. P. C., could order the new D. P. C. To rectify !He error of the previous one. If a faulty recommendation had been made by the D. P. C. And approved by the competent authority, there was an end of the matter and it was no longer open to the competent authority to order the reversal of the previous recommendation and the decision based thereon. As it is, neither the recommendation of the D. P. C. Was irregular nor the promotion ordered on the basis thereof by the competent authority ultra wires of the rules. We, therefore, do not see how there arose any necessity of rectification of error. But, even if there had been any error this could not be removed by chang--ing the recommendation made earlier and the promotion made on that basis.
14. In defence of the D. P. C.'s action of 11-1-1981, it was claimed that the D. P. C, never recommended the appellant's demotion but that he was assigned his proper place in the "fit list". This argument is without any substance whatsoever. The appellant could be placed in the "fit list" only if be had not been already promoted. This officer had already, been promoted and, as laid down in paragraph 3 of the instructions at S. No. 146 of page 121 of the Estacode 1979," an officer who has been promoted to officiate in the substantive vacancy for an indefinite period should not appear in the list because he is for all purposes to continue in the higher grade." However, when the D. P. C., in its meeting held, on 28-9-1980, recommended that "in the event of his physical reversion from Press Information Department the earlier recommendation of D. P. C. Whereby both M/s. I. H. Naseem, Muhammad Ramzan were considered may be reviewed," it practically ordered the demotion of the appellant and that is, presumably, why the Appellant was actually reverted on 4th February, 1981, with retrospective effect. Subsequently, when they placed him as the last person on the "fit list", they further confirmed the decision, taken and implemented, to demote the appellant.
15. As already observed at the beginning, there is no doubt that, in this case, an employee of the Government, who had been duly considered and recommended as fit for promotion and promoted on the basis of this recommendation and had also worked for about 2 years in the higher appointment, suddenly found himself demoted to his former post, merely because the D. P.
C. Thought that its earlier recommendation was faulty. If D. P. Cs. Were allowed to change their decisions with the change of personnel and if departmental heads decided to undo those decisions of their predecessors with which they did not find themselves in agreement, employees of Government, as well as others likely to be affected, wet bound to feel insecure and administration, deprived of continuity an finality in its orders, will become a mockery, which people will cease to put any reliance in.
16. For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and order that the Appellant shall be treated as never having been reverted from Grade-16 to Grade-11; that he shall be given a posting in Grade-16 in the Bureau of Research and Reference; and that he shall also get all the consequential benefits accruing froth this order.
17. No order as to costs.