' The appeal captioned above arises from the decision dated 22-4-1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted and setting aside the reversion order dated 21-6-1984 it was declared that the respondent was assistant depot superintendent from the date of his promotion and was entitled to continue on the said post. He has been allowed back benefits also.
2. The facts are that in 1980 vide order, copy of which is Ex. R-18, the respondent was promoted from the post of booking clerk to that of assistant depot superintendent on the condition that the promotion would be confirmed if the rule of educational qualification was relaxed by the competent authority. The respondent admittedly is a non-Matric, whereas minimum qualification for the post of assistant depot superintendent is matriculation. Vide order dated 1-3-1984, copy of which is Ex. R-16, the appellant was informed that the General Manager had refused to grant relaxation of the rule. The learned lower Court has given two reasons for declaring that the respondent is entitled to the post of assistant depot superintendent from the date he was promoted to the said post. One is that the relaxation could not be refused after three years without giving reasons and the other is that according to Standing Order 1(c) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, the respondent stood confirmed as assistant depot superintendent on the expiry of three months. Both the reasons given are not sufficient. Learned counsel for the respondent has adopted the same reasons in his arguments which the learned lower Court has put forward in the impugned decision. In the order of promotion, copy of which is Ex. R-18, no period is fixed during which any order with regard to the relaxation of rule was to be passed. If the order of relaxation of rule is belated, the respondent is not prejudiced by it, but has been benefited by it. If relaxation of rule had been refused earlier, the respondent would have been reverted long ago. Giving of reasons to refuse relaxation is not necessary as no rule in this respect has been cited. Relaxation of rule with regard to qualification is discretionary and if the competent authority refuses to exercise the discretion, neither it is necessary to give reasons nor the refusal is challengeable. The rule which granted a right to the respondent was that the rule with regard to educational qualification could be relaxed. There is no rule guaranting any right that relaxation must be granted or that it can be refused only by giving cogent reasons. Minimum educational qualification is a mandatory provision of rule and if a person does not satisfy such a provision, he otherwise cannot claim promotion. Since the promotion was conditional and the competent authority refused to grant relaxation, the respondent had no right to go to the Labour Court. The argument that the respondent stood confirmed as assistant depot superintendent under Standing Order 1(c) is equally without force. If the respondent had been promoted without any condition, of course he could claim confirmation on the expiry of the period of three months, but since the promotion was conditional, he got no right. There is nothing in Standing Order 1(c) to show that if a conditional order of appointment or promotion has been passed, on the expiry of three months, the person stands confirmed even if the condition is not fulfilled. It has been argued on behalf of the respondent that since previously the respondent was promoted from the post of booking Clerk to a higher post under the rules of 1959 which did not provide that the minimum qualification would be matriculation, the respondent had vested right under the said rules and, therefore, neither any condition of relaxation could be attached to the second promotion, nor on account of refusal of the relaxation of rules he could be reverted. This is true that the post to which the respondent had been previously promoted was redesignated afterwards as assistant depot superintendent and the learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to show that in the rules of 1959 there was any condition of minimum qualification, but since the previous promotion had come to an end before the rules of 1976 were promulgated, it cannot be said that the respondent had acquired any vested right by his previous promotion. When he was promoted to the post of assistant depot superintendent for the second time the rules of 1976 were prevailing according to which, the miminum educational qualification was matric and since the respondent admittedly was not a matriculate, therefore, on the condition of relaxation of rule pertaining to educational qualification, he was conditionally promoted. The respondent, therefore, was rightly reverted and the learned lower Court erred in accepting his grievance petition.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the order of reversion passed against the respondent is restored.