JUDGMENTMalik Muhammad Parvez Khan, Chairman Appellant preferred the present appeal against respondent's order for not granting the move-over to him from BPS-17 to BPS-18 with effect from 1.12.1984.
2. According to him he is serving as Lecturer in Economics in the Education Department since 1.11.1973 and was entitled to the move-over to the next higher grade since 1.12.1984. His case was forwarded to the concerned quarter which was sent back on 31.3.85 with the endorsement that he is not considered suitable for move-over. There was no ground given for un-suitability of the appellant to earn the move-over, therefore, he under the apprehension of adverse ACR for the year, 1983 approached the authority for the expunction of the same because he had got bad relations with the Reporting Officer which resuIted in an enquiry against his Immediate Officer and the adverse remarks effecting the move-over were set aside in toto while his case was again submitted for the grant of move-over. However the same was deferred with the remarks dated 4.4.1987 that he should earn one more report. After the writing of ACR again his case was put before the concerned forum but to his entire dis-satisfaction he received the order dated 9.3.1988 that he was not considered suitable due to his un-satisfactory record of service. According to him his case of move-over was thorughly examined and deferred vide previous order and the impugned order was illegal, uItra vires, contrary to the earlier orders, hence not maintainable. His appeal to the authority was rejected on 21.8.88; hence the present appeal.
3. Respondents refuted the claim of the appellant on the grounds that this Court has got no jurisdiction, that the appeal is not competent and the same is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. It was further admitted that the remarks for the year, 1983 were expunged and the entires were converted into average except in column 3 of Part-II and colums 4 and 12 of Part-Ill. The decision of the Selection Board is final and cannot be challenged.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that appellant had been serving in the Education Department from 1973 and after the introduction of the scheme of move-over, he became entitled to the benefits as he fulfilled the requisite qualifications. His adverse ACR was expunged and in the light of the order of the respondent Government he was entitiled to the grant of move-over.
4. On the other hand learned Special Govt. Pleader argued that findings of the Selection Board cannot be challenged before this forum and since the appellant did not qualify the requisite qualifications for the grant of move-over, his case was not considered for the same.
5. We have gone through the record of the case with the assistance of the parties. Under the rules invogue the provincial Selection Board is empowered to grant the appellant move-over in the light of the record subject to the approval of the authortiy i.e. The Chief Minister. In the present case we have examined the record thorougly but were unable to find out the approval or rejection of the case of the appellant by the authority. What we were told at the bar by the representative of the respondent was that the cases which are not approved by the Provincial Selection Board are not sent to the authority for approval. This practice is not legal and proper because the authority i.e. The Chief Minister under the rules is to approve or reject the case of a Government Servant. Such like boards are constituted only to facilitate the work of the authority, who being the Chief Executive of the Province is always busy in another governmental and political activities relating to his job.
However this is a fact that this case was not sent to the authority and the recommendations of the Selection Board cannot be made the subject matter of appeal before this Tribunal. This being the position, the appeal fails which is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs and the file be consigned to the record room.