' This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10-1-1982 passed by a learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi.
2. Aslam Khan Khattak, respondent No,4 in the present petition and the petitioners were originally employees of the Radio Pakistan and were civil servants. The Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation came into being with effect from 20-12-1972 through the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Act 1973 (Act XXXII of 1973). By virtue of Section 12 ibid the civil servants serving in Radio Pakistan stood transferred to the newly created Corporation viz. The Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation and thus with effect from 20-12-1972, such servants of Radio Pakistan became the employees of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation. Under subsection (4) of Section 12 the terms and conditions of service of these employees were saved and it is provided that the same shall not be altered by the Corporation to their disadvantage.
3. Aslam Khan Khattak, respondent No,4 prior to 20-12-1972 was serving in Radio Pakistan as an Assistant. A notification of employee transferred from Radio Pakistan to the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation was published and the name of respondent No,4 figures at serial No,44 of the list attached to the notification as an Assistant. Subsequently, by an order dated 30-6-1973 (Exhibit P.9), he was appointed as Assistant In charge, Legal Branch, Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation. On 6-7-1974 respondent No,4, and three other Assistants In charge were promoted a Superintendents.
4. The petitioners represented against the promotion of respondent No,4 as Superintendent on 9-7- 1964. The representation was addressed to the General Secretary, P.B.C. Headquarters Staff Union, Rawalpindi while a copy of the same was endorsed to the Director-General, PBC Rawalpindi.
' On 12-10-1974. The Director-General, Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation cancelled the order dated 6-7-1974 whereby respondent No,4 was promoted as Superintendent. On the same day, the Director-General Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation created an ex-cadre post of Superintendent in the legal Branch of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation and through another office order of the same date, he appointed respondent No,4 as Superintendent against the said ex-cadre post.
Respondent No, 4 reported for duty against the ex-cadre post of Superintendent on 12-10-1974 vide his report (Exh. D.9).
5. On 8-11-1974, respondent No,4 submitted written representation to the Director-General, Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation against the cancellation of the orders of his promotion as regular Superintendent and his appointment as Superintendent against an ex-cadre post. More than a year and a half afterwards i,e, on 15-5-1976, respondent No,4 was informed about the rejection of his representation and that he could not be placed to the regular cadre of Superintendent on the basis of his appointment against an ex-cadre post. On 21-5-1976, the Director-General, Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation passed orders regarding retention of the ex-cadre Post of Superintendent of Legal Branch till 1-5-1975 and thereafter to treat the same as a post on permanent basis.
6. Respondent No,4 filed a civil suit on 4-6-1976 seeking a declaration to the effect that he was a confirmed Superintendent in regular cadre and the orders dated 15-5-1976 and 21-5-1976 to the contrary were void. Illegal, mala fide, of no legal consequence and in-effective against his rights and status.
' As a consequential relief, he asked for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from acting upon the said void orders.
' The suit was resisted by respondents Nos.1 to 3 here in and in the light of the parties' pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-
(1) Whether the impugned orders are illegal, ultra-vires and void.
(2) Relief.
7. No oral evidence was, of course, produced by the parties before the learned trial Court and they placed reliance on the documentary evidence. The learned Civil Judge, after considering the documentary evidence adduced by the parties, decreed the suit of respondent No,4 against respondents Nos.1 to 3.
8. The said respondents i.e respondents Nos. 1 to 3 preferred an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners submitted an application under Order 1, rule 10, C.P.C. For being impleaded as party. The learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal and remanded the case vide his judgment dated 5-2-1980 with the direction that the present petitioners be impleaded as party and the case be decided afresh after allowing them opportunity to adduce evidence.
9. Respondent No,4 however, filed an appeal against the order of remand before this Court which was accepted on 16-11-1980 and the case was remanded to the learned Additional District Judge with the direction that the present petitioner could be impleaded as party by the learned Additional District Judge and thereafter the matter could be decided in accordance with law. The petitioners were thus impleaded as respondents in the appeal before the learned Additional District Judge. They produced certain documents and the learned Additionsl District Judge through the impugned judgment dated 10-1-1982 dismissed the appeal.
10. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioners that the order dated 6-7-1974 whereby respondent No,4, was originally promoted as Superintendent was not acted upon before it was recalled on 12-10-1974. It has also been urged that respondent No,4, accepted his ex-cadre appointment against the ex-cadre post of Superintendent in the Legal Branch and reported for duty. He could not therefore, question such appointment. It is further contended that the Board of Directors of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation adopted Government Servants Rules and certain other Service Regulations of the Federal Government for the employees of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation and that as per serial No,101 at page 144 of the Establishment Manual Volume III in case of civil servants, no Assistant of less than five years' service was eligible to be considered for promotion as Superintendent, Respondent No,4 who had not put in five years' service as Assistant was not qualified to be appointed as Superintendent in the regular cadre.
11. Repelling the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners it has been argued by learned counsel for respondent No,4 that his client before the inception of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation, was already serving as an Assistant in Radio Pakistan and he was appointed Assistant in charge on 30-6-1973. His appointment as such was not challenged by the petitioners or anybody else. He further maintained that pursuant to a demand notice served by the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation Employees Federation (the Collective Bargaining Agent) on the management of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation, a settlement (Exh. P.11) was arrived at between the Collective Bargaining Agent and the Director-General Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation. According to this settlement it was inter alia decided that posts of Assistant In charge would be abolished for future recruitment and the existing Assistant In charge would be absorbed as Superintendent as and when such vacancies became available. He thus argued that as a step to implement the settlement, respondent No,4 was promoted as superintendent with effect from 6- 7-1974 in the regular cadre vide orders dated 6-7-1974 (Exh. P.1). The orders of promotion dated 6- 7-1974 pertained to four Assistants In charge. It is urged on behalf of the contesting respondent that only his promotion was cancelled on 12-10-1974 unilaterally without affording an opportunity of show-cause notice to him. This could not be done. It has been submitted on behalf of respondent No,4 that he was duly communicated the orders of his promotion dated 6-7-1974 but he could not join his post of Superintendent Peshawar, because he could not be relieved of his duties in the Legal Branch due to exigencies of service.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the orders of promotion dated 6-7-1974 were cancelled before respondent No, 4 took over as Superintendent and thus the orders which were not acted upon could validly be recalled by the competent authority. Reliance has been placed on Province of the Punjab v. Muhammad Saeed PLJ 1980 Lahore 554, PLD 1981 Lahore 18 wherein it was held that a Police Officer catalogued in a letter of appointment could not claim appointment as a matter of right when his appointment was withdrawn before he received the prescribed training. It is noteworthy that in this case, it was clarified in the letter of appointment that actual appointment would be ordered after he successfully completed the training and that offer of appointment could be withdrawn before actual appointment. No such condition was imposed in the under consideration case regarding the promotion of respondent No, 4 as Superintendent vide orders dated 6-7-1974. In Muhammad Aslam Khaki v. Vice-Chancellor, Gomel University, D.I. Khan PLD 1980 Pesh. 128, it was ruled that power of rescinding was available till order took legal effect and that after order had taken effect and certain rights were created in favour of the individual concerned in pursuance of such order, it could not be withdrawn or rescinded. In the circumstances of this case, the petitioner was selected for admission in an Institute and was duly informed of his selection and was asked to join the Institute on a specified date. Before he could join the Institute, the orders were withdrawn. It was held that a valuable right accrued to the petitioner to claim benefit of admission to the Institute and such right could not be recalled unless it was held that the same was secured by fraud. Similarly, in Pakistan v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi PLD 1969 SC 407, representation of Himayatullah about his entitlement to receive starting salary of Rs,1,000 against his appointment in the General Administrative Reserve cadre of Government of Pakistan was accepted by the President of Pakistan on 1-10-1959. A communication was issued by the Secretary to the President and it was also endorsed to the Secretary Railways and Communications. Subsequently however, the President on 26-8-1962 withdrew his orders of 1- 10-1959, Himayatullah filed a writ petition in the High Court and it was held that a valuable right had accrued to Himayatullah and the President could not withdraw his orders dated 1-10-1959.
13. In view of the above, it is concluded that the order dated 12-10-1974 whereby the promotion of respondent No, 4 as Superintendent ordered on 6-7-1974 was cancelled, cannot, legally, be defended on the ground that the order was withdrawn before the said respondent took over as Superintendent, Peshawar.
' As regards, the second argument that respondent No, 4 accepted his appointment as Superintendent against an ex-cadre post by joining that post, and therefore, he was estopped from contending that orders regarding his promotion as Superintendent, dated 6-7-1974 were illegally cancelled, reliance has been placed on Ghulam Sarwar Khan v. Federation of Pakistan and 16 others 1980 SCMR 566. In this case, the petitioner, a Family Planning Officer Grade-16, accepted offer of ex-cadre post as Social Scientist having higher scale of pay and status vis-a-vis Family Planning Officer. It was held that such appointment being by selection as opposed to promotion giving the petitioner a chance of by-passing his senior colleagues, he (the petitioner) could not complain against promotion of his senior colleagues to their own cadre. The cited case is distinguishable on facts inasmuch as in the under consideration case, respondent No, 4 was already promoted on regular basis as Superintendent and after the cancellation of the orders of his promotion without taking him into confidence, was appointed against an ex-cadre post. In the circumstances, he had no option but to join the post.
' As regards, the third contention to the effect that the promotion, dated 6-7-1974 of respondent No, 4 was violate of Civil Servants Rules which were made applicable by the Board of Directors of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation to the employees of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation, it has already been observed that as a matter of fact the promotion of respondent No, 4 as Superintendent was made pursuant to a settlement arrived at between the Management of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation and the Collective Bargaining Agent whereby posts of Assistant In charge were to discontinue and the existing Assistant In charge were to be absorbed against the next available vacancies of Superintendents. It is also observed in this respect that the Board of Directors of Pakistan, Broadcasting Corporation adopted Government Servants Rules for the employees of Pakistan, Broadcasting Corporation vide its order, dated 13-9-1973 whereas respondent No, 4 was appointed as Assistant In charge on 30-6-1973, i,e, prior to 13-9-1973. The subsequent promotion of respondent No, 4 as Superintendent had to be ordered by virtue of terms of the settlement arrived at between the Collective Bargaining Agent and the Management of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation.
14. In the light of above observations no exception can be taken to the impugned judgment whereby the orders impugned by respondent No, 4 through the civil suit were found to be illegal, ultra wires and void.
15. It is alleged on behalf of the petitioners that the learned lower Courts have misconstrued, misread and mis-appreciated the documentary evidence brought on the record by the parties. As a matter of fact in the light of the above discussion, it cannot be construed by any stretch of imagination that the impugned judgments passed by the learned lower Courts are the result of misreading, misconstruction or miss-appreciation of documentary evidence produced by the parties before the trial Court. Needless to say that the learned trial Court as also the learned lower Appellate Court were competent to decide the suit and the appeal culminating into the impugned judgment and decree. It has, of course, been half-heartedly argued on behalf of the petitioners for the first time in this Court that the matters being relatable to the terms and conditions of the employees of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation in respect of whom the Board of Directors adopted the rules governing the Government servants, the civil Court lacked jurisdiction in the matter. This argument has no substance because admittedly, the employees of Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation are not civil servants with in the meaning of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the dispute giving rise to the impugned judgment being of civil nature could certainly be tried by the Civil Court, a Court of plenary jurisdiction, under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this view of the matter, it is further observed that a finding accorded by a Court of competent jurisdiction on questions of fact cannot be interfered with in exercise of provisional jurisdiction by this Court unless the lower Court while recording such finding has acted illegally or with material irregularity. In N.S. Venkatagiri Lyyanagar and another v. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board Madras PLD 1949 P C 31, it was ruled by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that if the High Court is satisfied that (a) the order of the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction: (b) that the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction: and (c) that in exercising jurisdiction the Court has not acted illegally or with material irregularity, it has no power to interfere because it differs, however profoundly, from the conclusions of the subordinate Court upon questions of fact or law. Similar view has been expressed in Muhammad Swaleh and another v. M/s. United Grain and Fodder Agencies PLD 1964 SC 97 and Umer Dad Khan and another v. Tila Muhammad Khan and 14 others PLD 1970 SC 288.
16. In view of the above conclusions, this revision petition fails, and therefore, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.