1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner Head Vernacular Clerk in the Office of Chief Engineer, Irrigation, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 19-4-1982 whereby his appeal was dismissed.
2. ' The petitioner was considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee and was recommended by it and an order to the following effect issued on 30-12-1975 by the competent authority:- "With the approval of Circle Departmental Promotion Committee, Mr. Shaukat Ali, Permanent Vernacular Clerk, attached to Lahore Division, is hereby selected and promoted as offg. H.V.C. By superseding Muhammad Anwar and Mubarik All Vernacular Clerks..
3. ' He is posted in Lahore Division vice S. Iqbal Hussain Kazmi offg. H.V.C. Transferred to Kasur Division where the post is lying vacant."
4. ' It appears that the officials superseded represented whereupon the Departmental Promotion Committee was asked to reconsider its views which it did and the competent authority recalled the earlier order. The petitioner made a grievance of it on the ground that the Departmental Promotion Committee was not competent to recall its recommendations and the competent authority could not interfere with the Promotion Order after having passed it. Getting no relief within the department, he approached the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal came to the following conclusion with regard to the merits of the claim:- "The decision to entertain the representation of Muhammad Anwar and Mubarik Ali, the decision to withhold issue of promotion order to the appellant, the decision to accept the contention of Muhammad Anwar and to place the matter for reconsideration before the D.P.C. Were all taken by the S.E., i.e, the competent authority. The D.P.C. In its wisdom, saw reason to take a different decision in its subsequent meeting. This Tribunal is not in a position to question either of the two decisions because the matter of selection and promotion is beyond its pale. The appellant too could only challenge the D.P.C's decision if his name had not been considered alongwith other names, although even that right can be doubtful since he was junior to the other two contestants, viz. Muhammad Anwar and Mubarik Ali, and need not have been considered. The appellant was not able to show that he had received any promotion order and thus acquired a right to the post of H.V.C., since the order was withheld at the stage of issue and never reached the appellant."
5. ' His appeal was dismissed.
6. ' Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended before us that the order having been competently passed could not be recalled nor could the Departmental Promotion Committee reconsider his case.
7. From the judgment given by the Service Tribunal it appears that the order of promotion though passed on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee had not been communicated to the appellant. It had not been acted upon either. Besides on merits it appears that there were others, senior to the petitioner, who were ignored by the Departmental Promotion Committee and it was on their representation that the Departmental Promotion Committee reconsidered the matter. In the case of Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Israrul Haq and 23 others (PLD 1981 SC 531) it was held by this Court that the Departmental Promotion Committee is a substitute for the Public Service Commission and the competent authority has to act in consultation with it.
8. The competent authority can refer to it and ask from it a more considered view of the matter in controversy.
9. ' We do not consider that the Petition raises any question of law which may require further consideration. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.