S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). --Shan Muhammad, Instructor (Commerce) Government Commercial Training Institute, Government College of Commerce, Sargodha; has filed this appeal under section 4, of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Education, Lahore. The Director, Technical Education, Punjab, Lahore and Messrs Ghulam Hassan Jafri and 26 others, as per list annexed, as respondents.
By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the appeal be accepted and appellant be declared senior to the contesting respondents Messrs Ghulam Hassan Jafri and 26 others, and respondents Nos.1 and 2 be directed to amend the seniority list accordingly.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant after having qualified his M.A. Economics, joined Technical Education Department, as Junior Instructor on 2-4-1968, w.e.f. 7-3-1968. In the year 1971, the appellant was entitled to be promoted as Instructor but his promotion was withheld. However, vide notification, dated 31-12-1973, alongwith others, the appellant was promoted as Instructor on stop-gap arrangements in the scale of Rs.450-50-1,000 and was accordingly posted as such.
Ultimately the appellant, vide notification No.SO(TE)L-95/75, dated 1-6-1976, was promoted as Instructor in N.P.S. 17. In the year 1979 on 14th October, a tentative seniority list was issued by respondent No.2 and appellant was shown at serial No.60. The appellant made a representation to respondent No.1 contending that the officers from serial Nos.27 to 52 of the tentative seniority list should have been placed junior to the appellant. However, respondent No.1 issued a seniority list of Instructors approved by the Governor of Punjab, vide No.S.O.(TE)4-11/78, dated 14-3-1984, ignoring the representation of the appellant, placing him at No.62, whereas respondents 3 to 29 were shown at serial Nos.28 to 54. The appellant has now filed this appeal in the year 1984.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid stress on the following two points:-
(1) That according to the terms and conditions of service of the appellant, which were to be governed by the Office Order No. DTE/STE-(4) Com-108-65-15470-81, dated 6-3-1965 and according to the said rules he was entitled to be promoted in the next cadre after three years, service. In view of the said rule the learned counsel for the appellant has laid emphasis that these rules have been violated and he should have been promoted after rendering 3 years, service and thus would have become senior to the other respondents.
(2) That the seniority list which he challenged was a tentative seniority list issued in the year 1979 but the case of the appellant was not looked into true perspective in view of his earlier arguments as given above, therefore, he waited for the second seniority list which was final one and notified in the year 1984. The appellant has pleaded his case against limitation on the sole ground that he was served with the said seniority list in the year 1984.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that his appeal is hopelessly time- barred as the appellant has failed to challenge the final seniority list, which was issued after the approval by the worthy Governor and no further representation or appeal was available to the appellant under the rules, therefore, he was under obligation to file his appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, after the said notification, which was a notice to the entire world.
7. On the merits of the case, it has been submitted that the Service Rules on which the appellant has relied, has been misquoted as well as distorted, in view of established principle of law that nobody can automatically be promoted after completion of his 3 years, service because promotion is always available on promotion post as well as seniority-cum fitness, a principle which has always been followed. The learned District Attorney has vehemently denied that he was promoted alongwith his junior Instructors against the post reserved for departmental promotion and none of his junior were ever promoted by the Department, therefore, no injustice was done in his case. He has further resisted the claim of the appellant for pro forma promotion as the same is made according to the individual merit and if at all he has any grievance, he should have approached the Service Tribunal in 1976, when ha was promoted as Instructor and not at this belated stage. He has supported the seniority list as according to him, it was finalized after careful consideration of the objections raised on the tentative seniority list.
8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and would first of all advert to the point of limitation, which is crucial in this case. After giving our careful consideration, we find that the appellant in para.2 of his appeal, has himself conceded that in the year 1971, the appellant was entitled to be promoted as Instructor but his promotion was illegally withheld. If this was so we do not find any objection on behalf of the appellant either to any next higher authority or any appeal before this Tribunal in which he might have challenged the withholding of his promotion, which according to him, was an act illegal by itself. He accepted the same and he was promoted alongwith his colleagues on 31-12-1973, of course as a stop-gap arrangement. We further find that the appellant was promoted as Instructor on 1-6-1976 and the seniority was duly reflected in the year 1979, against which he made objection but did not approach this Tribunal after the same was rejected and awaited for full five years for which he has given no justification for the delay of his appeal. In this manner we have no hesitation to hold that his appeal is barred by time.
9. With regard to the merits of the case we are in full agreement with the learned District Attorney that the terms and conditions of service have nowhere envisaged that he would automatically be promoted after the completion of 3 years service to the next higher grade whereas on the other hand it is well-established service principle the promotion is always governed by the seniority- cum-fitness and only when the post is so available. We have carefully scanned the seniority list and find that nowhere his juniors have been promoted over and above him and thus his objection that he has been discriminated falls to the grounds. He was duly promoted alongwith other Junior Instructors against the posts reserved for promotion quota. We have also taken care of Letter No. SO(S)18-4/79, dated 27-2-1979 which does not permit retrospective promotion. Similarly pro forma promotion cannot be granted as a right to a Government servant. Every case has its own individual merit. If the appellant felt aggrieved in 1976 on this account, he should have approached the Service Tribunal about the same, but at this belated stage he has failed to give any justification for the same.
10. In view of the above analysis of the case we are of the considered opinion that there is no justification for the Tribunal to interfere with the final seniority list, which has been carefully and correctly prepared after attending to all the objections of the appellant as well as others.
Resultantly we find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. There will be no order 4s to costs.
A. E.