ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-M. S.. Mushtaq Islamabadi, Assistant Director, Public Relations Department, Government of the Punjab, has made this appeal wherein he has impleaded Director, Public Relations, Punjab, Lahore, Secretary to Government of Punjab SGA&I Department (Information, Culture and Tourism Wing), Lahore and Mr. Muratab Ali Sheikh, Assistant Director, Public Relations, Government of the Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the seniority list Annexure IP' be amended to the extent that appellant is senior to respondent No. 3. The supersession of respondent No. 3 over the appellant be declared to be illegal and ultra vires and the appellant's seniority be restored at proper place.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Mr. M. S. Mushtaq Islamabadi, is serving. In the Public Relations Department. The appellant though senior to respondent No. 3 as Information Officer was ignored for promotion and respondent No., 3 who stood junior to him was promoted as Assistant Director on 10-3-1975. Soon after that the appellant was also promoted as Assistant Director on ad hoc basis on 17-5-1975. As the appellant was also promoted as Assistant Director only after one month and 7 days of the promotion of respondent No. 3 and the fact that the appellant was senior to respondent No. 3 as Information Officer, hence the appellant was required to be shown senior than respondent No. 3. This was brought to the notice-of the Director, Public Relations who assured the appellant that the mistake would be rectified. The appellant also made a representation for the same but the seniority list of Officers of the Public Relations Department corrected up to 30-7-1979 and printed in 1981, con--veyed to the appellant in January,. 1982, showed the appellant junior to respondent No. 3. The appellant feeling aggrieved of this seniority list, submitted his representation dated 27-1-1982, claiming seniority over respondent No. 3., which was rejected by the Government in the Public Relations Department vide their letter dated 20-4- 1982. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that while rejecting the representation by the respondent No. 2, vide Memo. No. SOE (INF) 3-1 /82, dated 20-4-1982 the following reason was given :- "The representation of Mr. Mushtaq Islamabadi, Assistant Director, claiming seniority over Mr. Maratab Ali Sheikh, is not based on facts. The Departmental Promotion Committee approved the promotion of Mr. Maratab Ali Sheikh to the post of Assistant Director and ignored Mr. Mushtaq Islamabadi and Mr. Masood-ul---Haq, on the basis of their service record. His representation is, therefore, rejected. He may be informed accordingly."
It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the fact was otherwise ; the appellant had better service record than the respondent No. 3, he was also senior to him and ignoring the appellant for the pro--motion of the Assistant Director on 10-3-1975 when respondent No. 3- was promoted was not justified, was irregular and illegal. The mere fact that the appellant was also promoted on 17-3-1975 on the same service record, though on ad hoc basis, only after about one month showed that the appellant had a good service record and thus his supersession in March, 1975 was not proper and was unjustified. Rebutting these arguments the learned District Attorney submitted that reliance be made to the para were comments submitted by the respondents and also a reference be made to the minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting of the Directorate of Public Relations, Punjab, dated 8-3-1975 which clearly proves that the appellant and respondent No. 3 were considered together by the Promotion Committee in their meeting held on 8-3-1975 and on the basis of the fitness, Mr. Maratab Ali Sheikh was selected for promotion as Assistant Director and thus the appellant stood superseded and he has no claim whatsoever regarding the promotion during the month of March, 1975, over and above respondent No. 3.
5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also consulted the record of this case carefully. We have also perused the minutes of the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 8-3-1975 held in the- Directorate of Public Relations, Punjab, comprising of S. Hafeez-ur-Rehman's Chairman, Mr. Muhammad Aslam Khokhar and S. Abid Ali as members. The last para. Of the decision of the Committee is reproduced below :---- "Decision.-A comparative study of the character rolls of the three eligible officers established that Mr. Maratab Ali Sheikh possesses not only a much better record than Messrs M.S. Mushtaq Islamabadi and Masudul Haq but was also consistently outstanding as an officer. As such it was decided that Mr. Maratab Ali Sheikh, Information Officer should be promoted as Assistant Director (grade 17)."
6. The above minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee clearly show that the appellant, Mr. M. S. Mushtaq Islamabadi and Mr. Maratab Ali Sheikh, respondent No. 3, were both considered for pro--motion by the Committee in their meeting held on 8-3-1975 and Mr. Maratab Ali Sheikh was selected on the basis of his fitness for promotion in preference to the appellant. Thus, the appellant stood superseded and the promotion of respondent No. 3 made as Assistant Director on 16-3-1975 was perfectly valid and in order, hence, he has no claim for the seniority over and above respondent No. 3.
7. Keeping the above analysis in view, we hold that there is no merit in the appeal which is dismissed as such.
There will be no orders as to costs.