' Sharaf-ud-Din has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan and Messrs Baqa Muhammad and 18 others as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that order of respondent No,1 dated 2-5-1984, be set aside and Divisional Selection Committee be directed to make selection in accordance with Tehsildari and NaibTehsildari Service Rules, 1962.
3. Comments have been received and after notice to the learned District Attorney, the appeal is converted into regular appeal and I will decide the same accordingly.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the case of the appellant was recommended to the Divisional Selection Committee alongwith others for the post of Naib-Tehsildar. The Divisional Selection Committee per its meeting held on 28-4-1984, came to the conclusion that the appellant could not be selected on account of the fact that his A.C.R. Of 1982 was found to be missing the remarks in the integrity column although in most of the columns there was no complaint. The work in consolidation operation is only for a period of 2 months. Aggrieved against this observation and his non-selection to the post of Naib-Tehsildar, the appellant filed a representation before the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, which was considered and rejected. Hence this appeal.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
6. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant before this Tribunal is that although there was no adverse entry against him in his service record, there were certain other candidates of much lower level than him with regard to the qualification and performance but the appellant has been ignored arbitrarily by the Selection Committee. He has laid lot of stress on the reply received by the appellant from the Commissioner, Multan Division, that he has been ignored due to adverse record.
7. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments submitted by the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan and has submitted that the stand of the Commissioner is most logical when he has submitted that no appeal lies against a case of promotion in view of the bar laid down in section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. He has further submitted that the appellant was duly considered and it was for the Divisional Selection Committee to see whether he was suitable candidate for promotion vis-a-vis other persons so recommended by the Deputy Commissioners alongwith him.
8. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the Commissioner in his comments has laid stress on the fact that against the integrity column of the appellant no complaint was written which according to him was average observation and not a strong recommendation about his integrity. I also find that the learned Commissioner has highlighted the fact against the appellant that he had very small experience in the matter of Consolidation. However I do not find any reference in the comments of the Commissioner in respect of Messrs Hafiz Ullah and Qadir Bakhsh Arabi against whom enquiries were pending and are still pending. Similarly there is no reference about the grievance of the appellant against Sultan Mahmood No,9 about whom the learned counsel for appellant has emphasized that he has no experience as Sadar Kanungo.
9. I am of the considered opinion that the Selection Committee cannot sit in arbitrary manner and ignore a person with certain observation which may prove factually incorrect later on and also that should take into consideration the merits and demerits of the competitors in the said field. This argument has some force but it cannot be considered all prevailing. The reason being that in the matter of promotion this Tribunal has got limited jurisdiction in view of bar placed on its power under section 4 of the P.S.T. Act, 1974, and cannot interfere with the prerogative which falls within the purview of the Divisional Promotion Committee. All the same while dismissing the appeal without any merit, I direct the learned Commissioner, Multan Division, to look into the case of the appellant as well as of the case of those about whom certain facts have been brought to the notice of the Tribunal by the learned counsel for the appellant in the larger interest of justice.