' M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the order, dated 26-2- 1979 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, whereby the appellant's appeal was dismissed.
2. The appellant joined service on 13-5-1960 as a junior clerk in the office of the Chief Engineer, West Pakistan Buildings and Roads Department. On 30-9-1967, the Department was bifurcated into two separate Departments, namely, (1) Highways Department and, (2) Buildings Department. However, as a number of representations were received by the Department from the staff in regard to inter se seniority and prospects of promotion, etc., it was clarified by letter dated 17-2-1968 that the cadre of the various Services of the former B & R Department was still "joint" and that promotion cases of non-gazetted staff would be decided by the respective competent authority of the two Departments "jointly". Subsequently, the Department invited options from the staff for their permanent allocation to one of the two Departments in response to which the appellant opted for the Highways Department in 1969.. However, in the wake of the dissolution of the Province of West Pakistan in 1970, organizational changes had to be made and the staff to be adjusted afresh according to the availability of posts in each Department. An order was, therefore, issued on 6-6- 1970 for posting the ministerial staff in both the Departments. By this order, the appellant was posted in the Highways Department. Subsequently provisional allocations by bifurcating the staff were made with effect from 1-1-1971, in the result of which the appellant was allocated, according to the availability of posts, to the Buildings Department. The allocation made to the two Departments was subsequently made permanent by order dated 6-6-1972, in the result of which the appellant became permanently allocated to the Buildings Department. Subsequently, however, the circumstances forced further organizational changes and by notification dated 25-7-1974, the earlier notification of 6-6-1972 was cancelled and the ministerial establishment working in the two Departments was permanently allocated to the respective tegional cadre on "as is where is" basis.
The appellant thus continued to remain in the Buildings Department.
3. In the meantime, promotion to the post of Accounts Clerk had been made on 30-3-1974 in the Highways Department. The appellant, who had earlier not challenged this promotion filed an appeal before the Tribunal in 1978 asserting that by the cancellation' of the notification of 6-6-1972 on 25-7-1974, the position as obtaining under letter dated 17-2-1968 became restored, with the result that the cadre of the two Departments was joint right upto 25-7-1974 and as such the promotions in each Department had to be made on the basis of joint seniority. He, therefore, claimed that being senior to the promotee in the joint seniority list, he (appellant) should have been considered and promoted. He further claimed that as he had opted for the Highways Department in 1970, his subsequent allocation to the Buildings Department was illegal. He accordingly prayed that the Department be directed to cancel his allocation to the Buildings Department and after posting him back to the Highways Department he be promoted as Accounts Clerk with effect from 30-3-1974, that is, the date on which his junior had been promoted. The Tribunal, however, came to the view that the appellant had been merely posted but not allocated to the Highways Department in 1970, that he had- failed to satisfy the Tribunal that he had a vested legal right to be allocated to the Highways Department and that his assertion that the notification dated 25-7-1974 had completely removed the earlier notification of 6-6-1972 from the very beginning could not be accepted.
4. Leave was granted to the appellant on 14-7-1980 to consider whether the Government was justified in considering the appellant as ineligible for promotion to a post in the Highways Department despite the fact that both these Departments at the relevant time had a combined] seniority list.
5. The main contention advanced before us is that the appellant having opted for the Highways Department had a right to be allocated to that Department and tha t, therefore, his allocation to the Buildings Department was unwarranted. Unfortunately, the letter by which the options had been invited has not been produced and as such it is not possible to examine the nature and the basis of the right being claimed. Ordinarily, and it appears to be the case here, options are invited only to ascertain the wish of the concerned staff in order to accommodate them,' as far as possible, according to their option but such invitation creates no vested right in the staff to an allocation according to their wish, for, as is obvious if every one were to opt for one or the other Department, the. Government could not possibly accommodate their option. The interest of public service has to be kept supermost in such situations particularly where the staff has to be allocated on account of organizational changes in the set up. The notification dated 6-6-1972 had been cancelled not in order to restore the earliar letter of 17-2-1968 but to implement the new arrangement brought about by the notification of 26-7-1974, whereby allocations were made on "as is where is" basis. The appellant had not challenged this latest notification of 25-7-1974 and even today learned counsel for the appellant concedes that he has no grievance as to that notification. He, however, relies on a report of "Anomllay Committee" but such reports are only in the nature of recommendations to the Government and cannot he made a basis for asserting or claiming a right. The appeal is, therefore, liable to dismissal for want of merit.
6. Mr. M. A. Bajwa, appearing for the respondent Provincial Government, objected even to the maintainability of the appeal for the reason that (1) the appellant's appeal before the Tribunal instituted in 1978 questioning a promotion made in 1974 was time-barred and (2) the said promotee, who was likely to be affected adversely in the event of the appeal succeeding, had not been impleaded. It appears from the admitting order of the Tribunal, which has been read in Court by learned counsel for the appellant, that the Tribunal was aware of the question of limitation. The 'question had been raised also in the written statement filed on behalf of the Government but the Tribunal has not adverted to the same while deciding the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that none of the objections had been pressed during the hearing of the appeal.
Be that as it may, we are not inclined to examine the objection because on the view we have taken, the appeal is to be dismissed.
7. The appeal is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
115