' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Mahmud-ul-Hassan Ansari has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974, in which he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Lahore, Secretary, Provincial Local Government Board, Lahore through its Chairman and Messrs Khalid Naeem, Muhammad Faisal Dar, Ch. Muhammad Hussain, Muhammad Yaqub Sheikh, Azhar Mehboob Malik, Zafar lqbal Dewan, Abdul Samad and Hassan Mehmood as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the selection made by respondents Nos, 1 and 2 in favour of respondents Nos, 3 to 10, be set aside as being violative of the rules and the representation of the appellant so rejected, be quashed.
3. Brief facts of the case are that prior to the inclusion of the posts of Engineers in L. C. S., the appellant was working in Class 1 (Jr.) now N. P. S.
17. However, w,e,f, 22nd July, 1971 Class I (Jr.) was given to Engineers, who also joined the service alongwith him. In the year 1974, the selection was made to Grade-18 in which the appellant was superseded/ignored on account of his bad service record and respondents were inducted to Grade-18. Aggrieved against this selection of respondents Nos, 3 to 10 and his own supersession, the appellant filed a Writ Petition No, 2320/74 in the Lahore High Court Lahore, which was dismissed in limine by Mr. Justice Shafiur Rehman as he then was, vide his judgment, dated 16th July, 1975.
However, the appellant was again considered in the years 1976, 1978, 1979 and 1981 but could not succeed due to existing enquires against him and his previous bad record of service. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Depart- ment and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid stress on the point that the appellant being only qualified person with 5 years experience in service, was the only eligible candidate for promotion to Grade-18 as the respondents at that particular time in the year 1974, did not qualify this condition prerequisite. He has also claimed that he undisputedly being senior to respondents Nos, 3 to 10 with good record of service, therefore, he was entitled for promotion as well as for pro forma promotion.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the appellant has not come with clean hands as, exactly the same grievance was ventilated by him through Writ Petition No, 2320- 74 in the Lahore High Court, Lahore and his appeal was dismissed in limine as it was found by the learned Judge of the High Court that his grievance was unfounded and the writ petition was without any merits. According to the learned District Attorney once this issue had been resolved between the parties, the same could not be agitated again after the lapse of 7 years before this Tribunal particularly when the Tribunal's jurisdiction is barred by section 4(i)(b) of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in matters of determining fitness or otherwise of a civil servant to be promoted to higher grade. However, learned District Attorney has admitted that the appellant was senior to respondents Nos, 3 to 10 in N. P. S. 17.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find after perusing the judgment of Lahore High Court that exactly the present grievances were fully considered by the learned Judge of that Court and it was held that seniority was not the only basis for promotion to a higher grade and fitness of a person and his service record was very much a relevant fact. Similarly the learned Judge also held that the appellant had been superseded on account of his bad service record and it was the prerogative of the superiors to decide whether a person was fit for promotion to a higher Grade or not. As to the selection of the contesting respondents, it was held that as the appellant could not qualify for higher grade due to his bad record the Government was fully justified to fill the vacancies with persons of better record although they did not fulfil the qualification of having 5 years' service experience. According to learned Judge such like qualification was not the mandatory and was only directory in nature and no exception could be taken to the same when the authorities sitting in the Promotion Board found it proper to fill the vacancies and to run the administration.
8. We have also further seen the record of this case and find that the appellant has been ignored number of times right uptil 1981, when it was found by the competent authority that he was facing a number of inquiries and had adverse entries in his A. C. Rs, which had not yet been expunged.
9. In view of the above analysis of the case and particularly in view of the judgment of the Lahore High Court which the appellant did not mention in the Memorandum of his appeal, we have no hesitation to hold that matters of promotion are beyond the purview of this Tribunal as laid down under section 4(i)(b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. Moreover, the fact remains undisputed that these matters have been fully adjudicated by the Lahore High Court, which was the proper forum in the year 1974 as this Tribunal at that time was not in existence.
10. The result is we do not find any merits in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. Parties will bear their own costs. To be communicated to the parties. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.