Messrs Safdar AIi, Mazhar Ali Shah and Irshad Ullah, Forest Rangers have filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the impugned order, dated 18/22-12-1985 (copy at Annexure 'F' of the appeal) passed by Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Forestry, Widlife and Fisheries Department. The appellants have impleaded the Conservator of Forest, Chief Conservator of Forest, Lahore and Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries Department as respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
2. Through this appeal the appellants have prayed that the impugned orders, dated 18/22-12-1985 so far it denies the regular promotion to the appellants may be set aside and it may be declared that the appellants cited above stand already promoted on regular basis vide order, dated 1-3- 1983 (copy at Annexure 'C' of the appeal).
3. The facts of the case are that the appellant on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee were promoted by the Conservator of Forest from the rank of Deputy Rangers to the rank of Forest Rangers with effect from 1-3-1980 vide order, dated 1-3-1980 (copy at Annexure 'E' of the appeal). The Chief Conservator respondent No.2 and the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Forestry Wildlife and Fisheries Department (respondent No.3) objected on the promotion on the grounds that the posts of Forest Rangers have been upgraded from N.P.S.-11 to N.P.S.-16 w.e.f. 23-1-1980 and as such the power of appointment and promotion to this post vested in the Government. The appellant Safdar Ali filed the appeal vide Appeal No. 460/660 of 1980 and the Government stand was accepted by the Punjab Service Tribunal with the following observations:- "While dismissing the appeal we would like to make an observation for the consideration of the Government in the Forestry and Wildlife Department. As is apparent from the above discussion, it was on account of no fault of the failure of appellant that his promotion order had to be cancelled.
The recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee as well as the Conservator of Forest, Lahore Circle's order of promotion signify that he was fit for promotion and had duly earned it. For the appellant it is a matter of hardship and personal disappointment to revert to his original post after holding the senior post of Forest Ranger for more than nine months. We hope, therefore, that the Government will take a sympathetic view of the matter and see that the appellant does not suffer."
The appellants of this appeal were not reverted from the post of Forest Rangers. The case of the appellants was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee and the appellants were declared suitable for promotion. Consequently order, dated 1-3-1983 (copy at Annexure 'C' of the appeal) was passed and the appellants were promoted as Forest Rangers with effect from 3-1- 1980 on regular basis subject to the approval of the Government. The appellants felt that the said condition regarding approval of the Government was not proper because on 3-1-1980 the Conservator of Forest was the competent authority. Subsequently the Conservator of Forest proposed that necessary approval for the promotion of the appellants and upgradation to N.P.S.-16 may be given with effect from 23-1-1980 and the matter may be taken up with S&GAD. The case remained pending with the Government for 3/4 years and in the meanwhile according to the appellants the D.F.O. Lahore addressed a letter, dated 7-5-1985 to the Chief Conservator Forest (respondent No.2) mentioning that the appellant Safdar Ali was drawing pay of the post of Forest Ranger unauthorised. The appellants discovered that the S&GAD gave the following advice:- "The case is not covered by the policy for pro forma promotion. Mere availability of vacancies w.e.f.
The previous date does not provide enough justification for such claim. Previous promotion having been made otherwise than in the prescribed manner is also no ground for pro forma promotion."
Subsequently the Secretary, Government of the Punjab Forest Department. Promoted 14 Deputy Rangers and Forest Rangers in N.P.S.-16 w.e.f. 15-11-1985 and the appellant contended that the promotees are junior to the appellant. The appellants submitted a representation which was rejected vide order, dated 18-12-1985 (copy at Annexure 'F' of the appeal) vide which the appellants were ignored from regular promotion. Hence this appeal.
5. At the time of arguments the learned counsel for the appellant contended that appellants were promoted w.e.f. 1-3-1980 in N.P.S.-11 as Forest Rangers. The learned counsel for the appellant added that the Consevator was not competent to promote the appellants because the post was upgraded to N.P.S.-16 w.e.f. 23-1-1980. The learned counsel for the appellant further stated that the appellants continued to serve in the promoted status after the decision of Punjab Service Tribunal in the appeal of Safdar Ali who is appellant No.1 in the present appeal, no matter with the stand of the Government was approved, by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant stressed that on 2nd time promotion of the appellants no condition could be attached in the promotion order that it requires the approval of the Government because the Conservator was competent to promote the appellants on 3-1-1980 in N.P.S.-11 and the post was upgraded to N.P.S.-16 on 23-1-1980. The learned counsel for the appellant stressed that the said judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding Safdar Ali appellant was not applicable to the present appellants because they were promoted on 3-1-1980.
The learned D.D.A. Opposed the appeal and raised the preliminary objection on the basis of objections of the respondents that no appeal lies against promotion and fitness for promotion vide section 4 (c) of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The learned D.D.A. Further stated that the case for other Deputy Rangers cited by the appellants who were promoted as Forest Rangers in the N.P.S.-16 w.e.f. 5-11-1985 is not applicable to the appellants as it does not justify the promotion of the appellants w.e.f. 3-1-1980.
I have carefully considered the points so raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned D.D.A. And consulted the relevant record including the written objection filed by the respondents. To start with the preliminary objection raised by the respondents in their written objections and pointed out by the learned D.D.A. At the time of the arguments is valid to the extent that the Punjab Service Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain or hear the appeals against the order or decision of departmental authorities to fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed or hold a post or otherwise promoted to a higher grade as specified under section 4, subsection (b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. Since the appellants have filed the instant appeal concerning the orders of their promotion as such no appeal was. Admissible before the Punjab Service Tribunal according to said provisions of the Act. As regards the merits it may be stated that original promotion orders of the appellant passed by Conservator of the Forest vide his provisional order, dated 1-3-1980 were set aside by the Punjab Service Tribunal vide judgment, dated 6-1-1981 and as such the appellants have needlessly relied upon the order, dated 3-1-1980 of the conservator of Forest in their favour. Similarly, the Conservator of Forest issued the conditional order, dated 1-3-1983 for the promotion of the appellants w.e.f. 3-1-1980 (copy as Annexure 'C' of the appeal). This order expressely indicated that the promotion order would be subject to the approval of the Conservator and shall be effective after such approval is granted. It is understood that Services, General Administration & Information Department declined to grant approval and, therefore, this is also not helpful to the appellants. Lastly the appellants' grievance is that they were promoted w.e.f. 1-3-1983 as Forest Rangers vide order, dated 31-3-1986 of the Secretary, Forest and on the other hand the so-called junior respondents were promoted vide order, dated 18-10-1985' of the Secretary Forest w.e.f. 5-11-1985. However, the appellants have been granted the promotion about 2-- years preceding to their juniors. This would also eleminate the grievance of the appellants that they have been put to hardship or made victims.
Hence finding no force in the appeal it is dismissed on points of jurisdiction as well as merits.
No order for the costs.
M.Y.H.