' M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- Common questions arise in these two petitions which challenge the orders of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 9-10-1983 and 7-11-1983, allowing the respondents' appeals.
2. Muhammad Aslam Chishti, respondent in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No, 1349 of 1983, who was working as Junior Officer (Admn.) in Grade 16, opted for the WAPDA Common Cadre Administrative Posts Service Rules, made on 30-1-1980 and was promoted to be Assistant Director in Grade 17. It is to be noted that he was entitled to be promoted directly from the post of Junior Officer (Admn.) Grade 16 to the Post of Deputy Director (Grade 18) under the previous rule which read : - "By promotion out of serving officers Section Officer/Junior Officers (Admn.) with five years' service as such on seniority cum fitness basis."
' Under the 1980 Rule, the relevant provision for further promotion read:- "By promotion out of the serving Officers (in NPS 17 with 5 years' service in Grade 16 on seniority- cum-fitness basis."
' However, the rule was amended on 22-5-1982, whereby significant changes were made in the qualifications for promotion as reproduced below:-
(a) Seniority-cum-fitness basis out of the holder of Assistant Directors' posts who are graduates with five years' service as Assistant Director/Section Officer/Jusior Officer (Admn.).
(b) Required to pass a departmental promotion examination within three years of their promotion or promulgation of the amendment dated 8-4-1982. In case of failure to pass the examination, not only that the further increments were to stop, those not being able to qualify were also not to be considered for such promotion. The explanatory note says: "The official who may have failed to pass within three years and suffered the penalty of stoppage of increments, shall be considered entitled to the rate of pay which would have been admissible to him but for his failure to qualify. The Authority reserved the right to grant a delinquent his increments if he could explain the passing of examination was beyond his control."
3. M.A. Rauf Abid, respondent in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No,27 of 1984, who had also been serving in Grade 17, was appointed as Junir Officer (Admn.) on 13-11-1980 which post was redesignated as Assistant Director (Admn.) Grade 17.
4. The petitioners who were thus hit by the amendment of 1982, preferred departmental appeals which were rejected. They then appealed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that although the WAPDA was competent under section 18 of the WAPDA Act, 1958 to frame rules relating to terms and conditions as they deem proper but they did not possess unfettered powers to frame rules which are not appropriate and which altered the existing terms and conditions to the disadvantage of the employees. The Tribunal did not take exception to the introduction of departmental promotion examination but held that a lead period of about two years, i,e,, upto 31- 10-1985, should have been given but between now and that date "the existing system of promotion on seniority-cum-fitness shall prevail". On this view of the matter, the Tribunal held the introduction of academic qualification of graduation in so far as it was made applicable to the departmental promotees to be illegal also the stoppage of increments for failure to pass the departmental promotion examination.
5. It was urged before us, firstly, that the power of the Tribunal did not extend to striking down the rules and the policy decisions of the Authority. In this connection, reliance was placed on Muhammad Suleman Khan v. Pakistan 1972 SCMR 127 in which a claim to seniority on the basis of having an examination under the old system had been rejected with the following observation:- "If Central Board of Revenue has since altered the channel of promotion, the petitioner cannot make a legitimate grievance of it as an infringement of any legal right amounting to alteration in the terms and conditions of service. As no right had vested in the petitioner for promotion by his having passed the examination under the old system, he cannot ask the enforcement of that right, and his petition was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the High Court."
' It was next urged that the Tribunal has fallen in error in holding that the rule was being applied, retrospectively inasmuch as no one already promoted was being reverted. Mr. Mahfuz-ul-Haq Khan, appearing on behalf of the respondents/caveators, however, supported the view, taken by the Tribunal.
6. We feel that the points raised on behalf of the WAPDA require consideration. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted. As the order of the Tribunal is not being suspended, the appeals shall be made ready for early hearing.