1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-The petitioner, who was an Inspector, in the office of the Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs, Karachi, passed the prescribed qualifying examination successfully for promotion to Class II Post of Deputy Superintendent in the same department. According to the directive of the Central Board of Revenue made in March 1957, the system of qualifying examination was the only channel of promotion to the post of Class II Deputy Superintendent. After the petitioner passed the examination, his name was placed at serial No. 13 in the list of Inspectors who were qualified for promotion. However, the Central Board of Revenue, by a fresh directive issued on the 8th of October 1970, abolished the system of qualifying examina--petition, with the result that respondents Nos.4 to 11, who were basically senior to the petitioner but had not passed the qualifying examination, were placed senior to him in the list of the eligible candidates for promotion as Deputy Superintendents. The petitioner sought to challenge this latter directive of the Central Board of Revenue in writ jurisdiction of the High Court, on the contention that this has resulted to his prejudice by altering the terms and conditions of his service, and that it was, therefore, without lawful authority and ineffective against his rights. The High Court has dismissed the writ petition, leading to this petition for special leave to appeal.
2. It is obvious that the mere fact that the petitioner had passed the qualifying examination at the time when the system of examination for promotion was in vogue, did not create any vested right in the petitioner for promotion as Deputy Superinten--dent. If the 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 his service. As no right had vested in the petitioner for promotion by his having, passed the examination under the old system, he cannot ask for the enforcement of that right, and his petition was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the High Court. It seems that in effect the petitioner is claiming seniority over respondents Nos.4 to 11 on the ground of his having passed the qualifying examination, which the respondents had not. His effort to achieve that object by means of a writ petition in the High Court was entirely mis--conceived.
3. This petition is dismissed.