1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J---The petitioner, a civil servant, claimed seniority as Labour Officer from 12-1- 1966. It was denied to him by the department. It has been denied to him by the Punjab Service Tribunal by its order, dated 12th of September, 1983. The petitioner, therefore, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212 (3) of the Constitution.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner was promoted as a Labour Officer on 12-1-1966. His appointment was, however, subject to the conditions contained in para. 2 of the order which was as follows-- "This appointment is purely on temporary basis and subject to the approval of the West Pakistan Public Service Commission if it continues beyond the period of 6 months."
3. Another order was passed on 2-2-1970 in the following words-- "The following persons, officiating as Labour Officers, in stopgap arrangement, against the vacancies of other Regions are on the recommendations of Selection Board, constituted in pursuance of the instructions contained in S&GAD's Circular letter No. SOIV (S&GAD) 16-14/64 (Policy), dated 1st October, 1969 are hereby promoted as Labour Officers on ad hoc basis against the promotion vacancies caused in their own regions i.e. Lahore Region subject to the following conditions."
4. The name of the petitioner was at serial No. 5 of the list of promotees. The condition No. 5 of the promotion order reads as follows-- "that their ad hoc promotion will only last till the approval of the Commission have been received.
5. They will be liable to reversion to their original posts of Assistant Labour Officers if their promotion is not approved by the Public Service Commis--sion".
6. The petitioner addressed a representation to the Secretary of the Labour Department seeking that his promotion be regularised from 13-1-1966 and his seniority may be reckoned from that date.
7. On 23rd of September, 1979 issued another notification promoting among others the petitioner on regular basis as Labour Officer. The petitioner again represented to the Secretary on 11-11-1979 seeking the same relief.
8. By an order dated 3rd of February, 1980 the regular promotion of the petitioner as Labour Officer was ante-dated to 12-2-1970.
9. By a letter dated 2nd of September, 1981, the petitioner was informed on his representations as follows-- "The seniority of M/s. N.A. Leghari and Anwar Hussain as Labour Officer/ Assistant Director, Labour Welfare reckons from the date of their regular promotion in the said capacities. Their ad hoc promotion as Labour Officer prior to regularisation in the said capacity does not count for seniority and other consequential benefits as claimed by the applicants."
10. The petitioner moved a review petition against this decision which failed. In this background, the petitioner approached the Punjab Service Tribunal on 7-7-1982 claiming seniority as Labour Officer from 12-1-1966.
11. The Punjab Service Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction over the construction of the order passed on 12-1-1966 as it happened to be of a date before July, 1969. The assigning of seniority from the date of regular promotion was considered to be proper and in view of the earlier rejection of the representations the service appeal was held to be the-barred.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that what the petitioner was disputing was the order passed on 2-2-1970 which proceeded to promote him on regular basis to the post of Labour Officer ignoring altogether his earlier promotion and functioning on that post. It was, according to the learned counsel, against law. Besides, if the dismissal of review petition had also been kept in view the appeal before the Tribunal was within the.
13. All the orders relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner themselves show that promotion to the post of Labour Officer could take place only after consultation with the Public Service Commission or, in its absence, in consultation and approval of the Departmental Promotion Committee. Such consultation and approval was not forthcoming before 2-2-1970 and in the absence of it the petitioner cannot claim his promotion to be regular and in accordance with law.
14. One of the essential ingredients to make the promotion regular and effective was lacking till 2-2- 1970. When that deficiency was made up the promotion of the petitioner was taken to be regular.
15. No violation of law took place or condition of service of the petitioner was violated in treating him regular from 2-2-1970.
16. The petitioner could certainly file a representation against the treatment given to him by order dated 2-2-1970 and he had filed one but he could not after rejection of that representation avail of the the spent in seeking review of that order. His appeal was, therefore, clearly the-barred. In so far as the petitioner wanted the order passed on 12-1-1966 to be interpreted in his favour he was requiring the Tribunal to over-reach or exceed its jurisdiction for it did not extend to adjudicating on orders passed earlier to July, 1969.
17. We find that the petition raises no such question of law as may require further examination in this Court and leave to appeal is refused. 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.