' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The Petitioner, a Civil servant who retired from service, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 10-12-1985 whereby his appeal was dismissed in limine being time-barred.
2. The Petitioner was recruited to a post of Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Medical Officer Incharge, Punjab Mental Hospital, Lahore in the year 1955. He was transferred from this post as Assistant Director, Health Services on 16th of October, 1979 and finally retired from service on 31-10- 1983. The Petitioner, on account of seniority, experience and qualifications considered that he was entitled to be considered for promotion since 1-7-1973 when for the first time the occasion arose and on 4-7-1980 when for the last time while he was in service, such an occasion for promotion arose. He claimed from the Government due consideration of his claim and the grant of pro forma promotion but the same was refused to him finally in September, 1985 and the very next month, he filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal.
3. The Service Tribunal disposed of the appeal of the Petitioner by observing as hereunder:- "Without determination of merits of the case we have first to dispose of the preliminary objection of the respondent regarding the time-barred appeal. It is understood that apart from the fact that the seniority list was published on 2-1-1971 the upgradation of some posts of the general cadre was made resulting to promotion on 1-7-1973. Accoringly the appellant if he felt aggrieved after exhausting the departmental remedy should have lodged the appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal within the prescribed limit. Instead the appellant has come after 12 years. His grievance is obviously not for pro forma promotion rather against the impugned order dated 1-7-1973 when according to the appellant officers junior to him were promoted. Hence the appeal is dismissed in limine being time-barred."
4. The Petition for leave to appeal preferred before this Court was ordered to be fixed after the vacations but has been listed for hearing during the vacations and the Petitioner has no objection to its being heard now.
5. No doubt the last order against which the Petitioner went before the Tribunal was passed in September, 1985 and he promptly brought it before the Tribunal. Nevertheless from the narration of facts it appears that the last time the grievance arose in 1980, the Petitioner filed either appeals or representations against it and the same stood rejected or remained undisposed of. The letter relied upon by the Petitioner relates to pro forma promotion, the case brought before the Service Tribunal was not at all relatable to this final order because the relief therein sought was not of pro forma promotion but, of being considered for promotion from a retrospective date. A claim to the pro forma promotion is based on denial of a legal right of promotion. In this case no legal right of promotion as such is claimed. What is claimed is a right to have been considered for promotion to higher post when it did take place. There is no final order in respect of it and the appeal was not within time with regard to that claim. It was hopelessly time-barred because, according to the Petitioner himself, the last time he was not considered for promotion was in 1980. He filed the appeal before the Service\Tribunal in October, 1985.
6. In order to satisfy ourselves about the merits of the claim, we find that some explanation, for the way the respondent/Government acted is found in the, decision inter partes in the case of Government of West Pakistan v. A.A. Aziz PLD 1966 SC 188 where his claim to be non-transferable was upheld and the right to be promoted was also left to the option of the Petitioner himself, and this will appear from the following observations made in that judgment:-- "In the first reply sent by the respondent he clearly accepted his position to be that of a person who cannot be transferred. In the second too he said that he would stick to his appointment in the King Edward Medical College. He only added that he would consider the question of promotion when it was offered."
' The same matter has been dealt with in the judgment of Mr. Justice Cornelius as he then was in the following words:-- "..In order conceivably to minimise the number of such persons, and thus to free the hands of the Government in regard to their postings to the maximum possible extent, the administrative device was adopted of requiring the Director of Health Services to make enquiry from each such official "whether they would or would not like to be borne on the Provincial list intended for West Pakistan as a whole, so as to be considered for promotions and transfers according to their seniority." It was desired that they should be "informed in unequivocal terms that in case they want to stick to the College or the institution for which they were originally recruited, their claims for higher posts cannot be considered by Government pari passu with their colleagues serving in other institutions and borne on the West Pakistan Provincial List". In compliance with this direction, a reference was made to Dr. A.A. Aziz, and as already stated, he replied in unequivocal terms that he preferred "to stick to the place of my present posting". This he said in his letter of the 15th of August 1956, and he repeated it in his letter of the 4th September, 1956. His saying in the latter that he would decide about promotions "if and when they are offered" clearly excludes reservation of any claim of right to promotions within the Service in the ordinary way."
7. We find that no question of law of public importance arises in the case such as may require further examination and hence leave to appeal is refused.