S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Raja Aziz-ur-Rehman's has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 whereby he has impleaded Member Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and Full Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 3-9-1978, of Secretary, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, vide dated 26-10-1980 of Secretary(Consolidation), Board .Of Revenue, Punjab and order dated 12-11-1980 of Accounts Officer (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab be set aside and the order dated 4-7-1978 regarding the promotion of the appellant as Consolidation Officer be restored. He has further prayed that alternatively the respondent be directed to consider the appellant for promotion as Consolidation Officer on the basis of his seniority and fitness from the due date i.e., 4-7-1978.
3. Brief facts of the case are that at the time of the enforcement of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, the services of the Consolidation staff of the Co-operative Department were transferred to the Board of Revenue for absorption where the appellant was appointed as Assistant Consolidation Officer on 1-6-1960. The appellant claims that according to his seniority amongst Naib-Tehsildars, the appellant was promoted as Consolidation Officer on 4-7-1978 and was allocated to Lahore Division for his posting. The appellant joined as Consolidation Officer in the office of the Commissioner, Lahore Division on 5-7-1978, but however, the aforesaid orders were cancelled retrospectively by respondent No. 1, vide order dated 3-9-1978. The appellant made a representation which has finally been rejected by the Secretary (Consolidation), Board of Revenue on 26-10-1980, and he has been directed to report for duty as Naib-Tehsildar Reader, vide order dated 12-11-1980. Hence this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued on the main ground that the appellant was promoted regularly as Consolidation Officer on 4-7-1978 but these orders were withdrawn vide order dated 3-9-1978 arbitrarily and thus injustice has been done to the appellant. Further--more the learned counsel has submitted that this order was passed by the ministerial employees of the Board of Revenue and not by the competent authority. This order of cancellation of the promotion of the appellant is void ab initio, not passed by the competent authority. Controverting these arguments the learned District Attorney argued that the appellant was temporarily posted as a Consolidation Officer and these orders were with--drawn by the competent authority as there was no post available in Lahore Division. 'Thus, no injustice has been done to the appellant ; as he was never promoted as Consolidation Officer and the order of the cancellation of his promotion order is a valid order by a competent authority.
5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments put forth by the parties and have also consulted the record with the help of the representative of the Department and in the presence of the parties. The appellant's counsel after seeing and consultation of the record has felt satisfied that the order of cancellation of promotion was passed by the competent authority, hence, the order is lawful and competently passed. We have also satisfied ourselves from the record that the appellant could not be posted as Consolidation Officer for want of vacancy in Lahore Division, thus, competent authority had to cancel the said order of his promotion as required under the law and.
No exception can be taken against it.
6. Keeping the above-analysis in view, we hold that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such.
There will be no order as to costs.