MUHAMMAD ASIF, J. Through the instant writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the following directions:- i. Consider the petitioner for promotion against the post of General Manager (Geophysical Services) EG-VIII. ii. Fill the post of General Manager (Geophysical Services) EG-VIII through regular promotion as per rules instead of stop gap arrangement. iii. Change the promotion criteria adverse to the existing one.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Geophysicist (Trainee) on 28th July 1985 and, over the course of his meritorious service, ascended through the ranks, up to his promotion to the position of Manager (EG-VII). It was further contended that, pursuant to the applicable rules and criteria governing promotions, the petitioner became eligible for consideration for the post of General Manager (Geophysical Services) effective from the date the said position fell vacant, vis--vis 30th October 2018; Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner filed the departmental appeal on 19.09.2018 for consideration of promotion, wherein, he was informed, vide letter dated 29.10.2018 that he would be considered for promotion to next higher cadre in due course of time as per policy. On the strength of the aforementioned letter dated 29.10.2018, which assured him of being duly considered for promotion in due course, the petitioner submitted a departmental appeal on 24.05.2019, seeking elevation to the post of General Manager, effective from the date of retirement of the previous incumbent.
However, despite this assurance, the respondents turned a blind eye to his legitimate claim, leaving his appeal unaddressed and disregarding the principles of fairness and equity. Despite the petitioner's seniority within his cadre, which warranted his promotion, the respondents contrived a stop-gap arrangement by designating one, namely Muhammad Abid Tufail, as the acting General Manager. Mr Tufail, bereft of the requisite qualifications prescribed for the position, was nonetheless permitted to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of General Manager (Geophysical Services); such an action not only disregarded the principle of seniority but also violated the established norms and eligibility criteria governing such appointments. Reliance is placed upon the case of Abdul Hameed v. Government of Punjab and others (2008 PLC (C.S.) 1260), Muhammad Zafeer Abbasi v. Government of Pakistan through its Secretary and others (2003 PLC (CS) 503), and Dr. Muhammad Amjad and another. Dr. Israr Ahmed and others (2010 SCMR 1466).
3. Conversely, respondents No. 1 & 2, in their written comments, submitted that the petitioner, as an employee of Oil and Gas Development Company ("OGDCL"), falls within the ambit of Regulation 5(4) of OGDCL Employees (Service) Regulations, 1994; wherein no employee shall have any claim for promotion as a matter of right notwithstanding his qualification and experience; that the petitioner was aware of the fact that his promotion case was under consideration and would be finalized in due course of time; that the petitioner had previously filed a writ petition No. 4771 of 2014 in the Islamabad High Court for promotion in EG-VII, which was disposed of accordingly and the respondents heard the petitioner in person on 03.08.2015 and afforded him a formal hearing before a competent authority and informed, vide letter dated 09.09.2015, wherein, decision was conveyed that as per OGDCL Employees (Service) Regulations 1994, promotion case is processed upon recommendations of concerned Head of Department. As no case was initiated during the years 01.07.2008/07.07.2010 and 15.04.2011, that contention/claim for promotion from these dates was without merit. Petitioner was promoted to EG-VII w.e.f. 01.12.2012. The petitioner's continuous involvement in the process is well-documented and transparent. As per policy, the promotion of Employees of the OGDCL is considered w.e.f. 1st July and 1st December; therefore, the claim of the petitioner was that he was eligible to be considered for promotion from the post of EG-VII to EG-VIII (Manager to General Manager) w.e.f. 30.10.2018 is invalid, and Mr Muhammad Abid Tufail was appointed as Acting General Manager (Geophysical Services ) w.e.f. 03.04.2018 on the basis of the stop-gap arrangement upon posting of Syed Muhammad Naeem as General Manager I/C (OGTI) under Regulation 11 of the OGDCL Employees (Service) Regulations, 1994. Therefore, the instant petition may kindly be dismissed. The respondents relied upon the cases of Taj Muhammad, Chief Internal Auditor OGDCL and others v. Oil and Gas Development Limited through Manager Director and others (2022 PLC (C.S) 712).
4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record with their able assistance.
5. The record reveals that the petitioner joined the respondent's department in the year 1985 as an Assistant Geo Physicist; later on, he was promoted from time to time and served in numerous positions. As per the petitioner's claim, he was eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of General Manager (EG-VIII) as per the rules and criteria of the OGDCL Employees (service)
Regulation 1994; however, the respondents, despite filling the post through regular promotion, filled the said through stop-gap arrangement and promoted one Mr. Muhammad Abid Tufail as acting General Manager despite the fact that he was lacking requisite qualification.
6. The petitioner filed an appeal dated 19.09.2018 for consideration of his promotion to the post of General Manager (EGVIII) and through letter dated 29.10.2018, he was informed that he would be considered for promotion to the next higher grade in due course of time as per policy. The petitioner again filed a departmental appeal dated 24.05.2019 for his promotion, which remained unanswered.
7. Regulation 5 of the OGDCL Employee (Service) Regulation, 1994 deals with the appointment by promotion of the employees, which is reproduced as under: - "5. Appointment by Promotion i. Promotion to all posts in the corporation shall be made on the recommendations of the appropriate departmental Promotion Committee. ii. Only those employees who possess the qualification and experience as laid down for the purpose of promotion to a post shall be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee. iii. No promotion to a post shall be made except in accordance with criteria as contained Appendix-B iv. Where an employee from within the corporation possesses the requisite qualifications and meets the conditions laid down for filling the post, the vacancy shall first be filled in by departmental promotion and if no suitable candidate is available from within, then such vacancies may be filled in by direct recruitment. No employee shall have any claim for promotion as a matter of right, notwithstanding his qualification and experience."
8. Rule 5 and 32 of Regulations 1994 provide a method of appointment by promotion. Rule 5 stipulates that promotion to all posts in the Corporation shall be made on the recommendations of the appropriate Departmental Promotion Committee, should not be in the manner except in accordance with the criteria, it shall not be claimed as a matter of right, notwithstanding qualification and experience and in terms of Rules 32(3) promotion shall be made on the basis of merits, fitness and seniority in accordance with the criteria.
9. The Rule position ibid is specific and unambiguous, leaving no room for misinterpretation. By all accounts, it is certain that the petitioner, as an employee of the Corporation, is bound to follow the Rules and Regulations of his Employer, and it, being an administrative matter, cannot be interfered with while exercising constitutional jurisdiction.
10. The important aspect of the matter is that the petitioner retired from service on 14.04.2020, and if a promotion is ordered to be made with effect from 30.10.2018, it will open a floodgate of litigations, that too, in derogation of rules on the subject.
11. Undoubtedly, the promotion itself is not a vested right and cannot be asked for on the basis of a distorted interpretation of the Rules on the subject that clearly provides criteria of "seniority-cum- fitness" and not the "seniority" alone.
12. It is beyond the mandate of this Court to indulge in the exercise exclusively meant for the competent authority to be conducted being the best judge in their department. The fabric of an administration demands strict observance of Rules and Procedures, and it cannot be brought under judicial scrutiny in the absence of a lack of mandatory legal requirement, procedural impropriety and perversity or biases of the competent authority. However, in view of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Muhammad Aslam Sultan (2006 SCMR 1465), the claim of the petitioner cannot be acceded to. It has graciously been laid down that:- "3. In our opinion, this question needs no examination for the reason that the petitioner had retired from service and this Court in the case of Government of Pakistan through Establishment Division Islamabad and 7 others v. Hameed Akhtar Niazi 2003 PLC (CS) 212 has held that promotion from back date to a retired civil servant cannot be granted."
13. In view of the above, no case for the exercise of discretion in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution as prayed for is made out. Consequently, the instant writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.