' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Mian Shan Ahmad has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Khurshid Alam Bhatti, A. H. Naqvi, Zafar Hussain Shah, Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore and Director, Technicals Education, Punjab, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that pro forma promotion granted to respondents Nos, 1 to 3 may be ordered to be withdrawn and the seniority list be directed to be amended accordingly.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Governor of Punjab vide his notification, dated 6th June, 1974 promoted Messrs Khurshid Alam Bhatti, A. H. Naqvi and Zafar Hussain Shah respondents, as Principals, Government Commercial Training Institutes, in Punjab, with immediate effect. On 27th September, 1975 another notification came into existence which stated in partial supersession of departmental notification, dated 6th June, 1974, Governor of the Punjab was pleased to approve the promotion of Mr. Khurshid Alam Bhatti, Anwar Hussain Naqvi from 1st July, 1967 and 2nd May, 1968, respectively instead of 6th June, 1974 thus, conferring upon them the pro forma promotion.
Similarly, vide notification, dated 8th December, 1975, the Governor of the Punjab was pleased to approve the promotion of Zafar Hussain Shah, Principal, Government Commercial Training Institute, Rahimyar Khan as well from back date i,e, 5th June, 1968. It may be mentioned here that alongwith these respondents Messrs Masud Ahmad Khokhar, Ajmal Tanvir, Mubashir Ahmad and Himayat Yab Khan and Habib Ahmad Malik were also granted pro forma promotion vide notification of 1975.
The appellant made a representation against the said pro forma promotion of all these persons including those of the respondents on 8th October, 1975 which was ultimately rejected on 19th November, 1975, vide Annexure `H'. The appellant after awaiting for two years filed a fresh representation Annexure 'I' on 25th June, 1977 which was again rejected on 22nd January, 1981.
Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents assisted by the representative of the Department who were further represented by learned District Attorney, and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he was entitled to challenge the grant of pro forma promotions bestowed upon the respondents, vide notification of 1975 on the ground that the same was violative of the principle so laid down in this behalf. He has based this claim while assailing the earlier promotion of the respondents from 1 to 3 to the posts of Principals. It has been submitted that these appointments could only be made by promotion in respect of existing seats only after 50% of such seats have been duly filled in by direct recruit. As there was no appointment of direct recruitment in 1969, therefore, respondents Nos, 1 to 3 were made Principals by promotion in the absence of being any corresponding recruitment of candidates as direct selectee. It has been further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without proper application of mind. To elaborate this point further, it has been pointed out that respondent No, 2 was given pro forma promotion w,e,f, 2nd May, 1968 whereas at that particular time he did not possess the requisite qualifications. It has been further added that respondent No, 2 had not obtained his Master Degree in Economics and he cleared his M. A. From Peshawar University on 15th August, 1968 and intimated about the same on 30th August, 1968. By citing this instance learned counsel has pursuaded us to believe that Government was anxious to confer this advantage on the respondents without looking into the merits of their case.
7. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the point of limita;ion alone for the reasons that it was time-barred for 6 years.
With regard to the merits of the case, it has been submitted that respondents were working against the posts therefore, they were entitled to pro forma promotion. For this he has relied on PLD 1962 SC 367 (page. 369). He has also argued that it has been held in Ayub Rizvi's case that direct recruits cannot challenge the promotion of promotees, as he would not be entitled to be promoted to such vacancy. In this manner reliance has been placed on in case of Ijaz Ahmed Bhatti and NLR 1981 T 534.
8. We have given our anxious thought to the proposition so advanced by both the parties and find that the crucial issue before us is, whether we can interfere in the matter of promotion pro forma or other. Wise, made by the departmental authorities or not ?
9. We have already given this answer in negative in the case of Messrs Ajmal Tanvir, Masud Ahmad Khokhar Appeal Nos, 190/600/1980 and 141/609/1980. We have also further examined the point of limitation and find that the appellant filed his representation on 8th October, 1975 vide Annxure 'R. l' and was told on 19th November, 1975, vide Annexure `H' that his representation has been finally rejected. The appellant instead of filing appeal before this Tribunal, awaited for full two years and made a second representation on 30th August, 1977 which of course was again rejected on 22nd January, 1981. The claim of the appellant that lime limit should run in his case from 22nd January, 1981 is untenable for the reasons that he cannot be allowed to keep on repeating his representations after he has been finally told that his representation stood rejected. If we permit the same, we will be allowing a litigant to extend the period of limitation in his favour by making repeated representations in an indefinite manner. This principle has been approved by the Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as has been reiterated in varous judgments of this Tribunal.
Reliance placed on 1981 PLC (C. S.) 112 1981 PLC (C. S.) 127, 1975 SCMR 452. Without giving any further into the claim of the appellant with regard to the merits of the respondents and his own1 2 merits which have been argued at length, before us, we dispose of this appeal by dismissing the same on the following grounds :-
(a) lack of jurisdiction of this Tribunal to look into the matters of promotion in view of bar laid down under section 4(b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act. 1974 ;
(b) appeal being hopelessly time-barrd by about six years. However, there will be no order as to costs. 1982 PLC (C. S.) 242 1981 PLC (C. S.) 420