Punjab Public Service Commission advertised one temporary post of Principal, Agricultural Training Institute, Rahimyar Khan, in pay scale of Rs,1000-75-1750 (Grade-18). The post advertised was on all Punjab basis and the qualification prescribed therefor was PHD in Agriculture from a recognised University. Petitioner applied for the post on 16-10-1974. He was selected and recommended by the Public Service Commission and vide letter dated 22-12-1977 (Annex. B), Government of Punjab, Agriculture Department, offered him "a temporary post of Principal, Agricultural Training Institute, Rahimyar Khan, in NPS-18 with usual allowances as admissible under the rules on the following terms and conditions:- His appointment in the Agriculture Department is temporary and his services can be terminated at three months' notice without assigning any reasons, irrespective of the fact that he is holding a post other than the one to which he was originally recruited or on payment of one month's salary in lieu of the notice;
(ii) The offer is subject to the condition that he is not married to a foreign national;
(iii) He will be required to pass such medical test as may be required under the rules;
(iv) He has to join duty at his own expenses;
(v) In case he wishes to resign at any time three months notice will be necessary or in lieu thereof one month's pay would be forfeited;
(vi) He will be governed by such rules and orders relating to leave, travelling allowance, medical allowance, pay, etc; as may be issued by Government for the category of Government Servants to which he would belong;
(vii) His continued appointment against the post offered to him will be;
(a) subject to the verification of his character and antecedents for which purpose he is required to furnish immediately verification rule in the pro forma prescribed in SGA&ID's letter No, E&A (S&GAD)/13(12)/60, dated 15-8-1960, as amended from time to time; and
(b) further subject to his good work and conduct failing which his services would be liable to be terminated."
2. Petitioner joined the service on 31-12-1977 and continued working as the Principal, Agricultural Training Institute, Rahimyar Khan upto 21-1-1984 when he was sent on deputation to Pakistan Agricultural Institute, Islamabad. It appears that while working as the Principal of the Institute at Rahimyar Khan, petitioner was "given to understand" that the post which he was holding was up- graded to NPS-19 under Third Education Project. He, therefore, made an application (Annex. C) to the Secretary, Agricultural Department, Government of Punjab on 25-6-1978 praying therein that since he fulfilled the qualifications prescribed for the up-graded post, "My case for posting to the up-graded post may kindly be most favourably and sympathetically considered." Petitioner repeated his request on 30-12-1979 vide Annexure C/1. It is alleged that the petitioner's representations were not attended to and instead the Government proceeded to amend the West Pakistan Agriculture Service (Class-I) Rules, 1965, in their application to the Province of the Punjab, vide Notification dated 25-2-1980 (Annex. D) so as to provide that the appointment to the posts of Director/Principal of Agricultural Training Institutes shall be made by selection on merits from amongst six senior most Grade-18 Officers of the Extension Wing of the Agriculture Department and if no suitable person be available for appointment by selection, the vacancy may be filled in by initial recruitment of persons possessing prescribed qualification.
It may be stated that at the relevant time, there were three Agricultural Training Institutes in the Extension Wing of Agriculture Department located at Rahimyar Khan, Sargodha and Dhagal (Rawalpindi) and each institute was headed by a Principal in Grade-18. Petitioner who was holding the post of Principal at Rahimyar Khan took the stand that the post of the Principal was up-graded and he being the incumbent of the post was entitled to the up-graded post. He agitated his claim in a civil suit filed at Rahimyar Khan wherein he assailed the validity of the aforementioned notification amending the Service Rules. Petitioner later withdrew the suit in view of an undertaking allegedly given by the Department that the impugned notification was not to be implemented and the petitioner would continue as Principal/Director of the Institute.
3. Claim of the petitioner was examined by the authorities in the Agriculture Department who did not accept it as, in their view, post of Director/ Principal in NPS-19 was created anew in addition to the existing post of the Principal and the newly created post was to be filled in according to the relevant rules as amended. Services General Administration and Information Department took a different view somewhat favourable to the petitioner but the Agriculture Department stuck to its own stand.
4. Feeling dissatisfied with the stance of the departmental authorities, petitioner approached this Court through this Constitutional petition praying therein that "The respondents be directed to decide the case of the petitioner and to consider him as having been promoted to BPS-19 with the up-gradation of the post of Principal/Director of the Institute and the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits from the date of the up-gradation of the post".
5. Agriculture Department respondent No, 1 submitted parawise comments in this Court on 8-12- 1985 wherein it reiterated its stand that the post of the Principal (NPS-18) against which the petitioner was recruited was not up-graded but a new post of the Director/Principal in NPS-19 was created. It was pointed out in the comments that, the petitioner having been recruited against a post in NPS-18 "his seniority is maintained with other officers of NPS-18 of Extension Wing. He is not senior enough to be promoted to NPS-19." Department denied having given any undertaking in the Civil Court that the petitioner would continue as Principal/Director.
6. Petitioner filed a rejoinder on 8-11-1986 and appended therewith three documents Annexures F, G and H with a view to controvert the stand of the Department. Annexure F is a Note of the Agriculture Department which states qua the petitioner that "He was appointed to the post of Principal Agricultural Training Institute, Rahimyar Khan in NPS-18 by initial recruitment through the Punjab Public Service Commission on 31-12-1977. The post of Principal was upgraded to NPS-19 w,e,f, 1-7- 1978. On the filling up of the post of Director of Agriculture/Principal through the Provincial Special Selection Board, the Officer would be adjusted against an equivalent Grade-18 post of Deputy Director of Agriculture (T) in the Extension Wing." Annexure 'G' is the letter of the Finance Department dated 25-2-1986 wherein it is stated that "Finance Department agrees to the grant of pay of the up-graded post from BPS-18 to BPS-19 to Dr. M.S. Khan Rana, Director/Principal in service Agricultural Training Institute, Rahimyar Khan for the period from 1-7-1978 to 21-4-1984 during which he held the charge of the aforesaid higher post as admissible under section 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974." It was, however, made clear in this letter that the concurrence of the Finance Department would be subject to the condition that ex post facto sanction order of the competent authority i,e, Chief Minister was obtained by the Administrative Department. Annexure H is a letter of the Services General Administration and Information Department dated 4-4-1981 addressed to the Secretary, Agriculture Department stating therein that it was not acceptable that there were two posts in the Agricultural Training Institute, Rahimyar Khan, one of Director in NPS-19 and the other of Principal in Grade-18. View expressed by SGA&I Department in the said letter is reproduced hereunder in extenso:-- "It can reasonably be assumed that there is only one post of Principal redesignated as Director at R.Y. Khan which is held by Mr. M.S. Khan Rana. He was appointed as such in 1977 after selection through the Public Service Commission in accordance with the Service Rules then applicable. The Service Rules amended on 25-2-1980 cannot jeopardize his appointment and if the post held by Mr. Rana has been up-graded, he should get the benefit of up-gradation unless another post of Principal in Grade-18 exists in the Department to adjust him. If a corresponding post does not exist then he cannot be denied the benefit of up-gradation of the post. There would be no alternative because his services cannot be dispensed with on the ground that Service Rules have been amended to require filling of the post through a different method of recruitment. The new method can only be prospective in effect and will be applicable when the post falls vacant and is available for recruitment. The new method cannot be introduced so long as the post is held by the present incumbent who was appointed to it prior to amendment of the Rules. Although up-gradation of a post, if there is only one post, or up-gradation of all posts in a cadre should place the incumbent or incumbents in the higher grade, the Government would have the right to require them to fulfil the conditions of appointment prescribed for the up-graded post. Since the method of recruitment for the post now is by promotion the A.D., may obtain clearance of the Provincial Selection Board for appointment of Mr. Rana to the up-graded post. Selection for the post to the exclusion of this officer would not be possible if there is only one post."
7. Department submitted further parawise comments on 30-11-1986 reiterating its stand taken in the earlier parawise comments that the post of the Director/Principal was created anew. With respect to the letter of the Finance Department (Annex. G), it was stated that it related to the grant of pay of the post of Director/Principal and it did not deal with the issue whether the post of the Principal was up-graded or a new post of Director/Principal was created. It was further explained in these comments that "Three posts of Director/Principal in the Inservice Agricultural Training Institute Sargodha, Rahimyar Khan, and Dahgal were created anew. These posts did not exist in the West Pakikan Agriculture Service (Class-I) Rules, 1965. These posts were therefore included in the Punjab Agriculture Department (Extension Wing/Economics and Marketing Wing) Service Rules, 1980. Promotion to these posts took effect after the promulgation of the said Rules".
8. Writ petition was admitted to regular hearing on 1-12-1986 to examine the petitioner's contention that the post of Principal, Agricultural Training Institute, Rahimyar Khan was up-graded and he was, therefore, entitled to continue in the up-graded post and his rights would not be jeopardized by the amendments made in the Service Rules which amendments could not be given retrospective effect.
9. After the admission of the writ petition, respondents Nos, 3 to 9 who were working as Directors in the Agriculture Department and claimed to be senior to the petitioner were impleaded as parties.
Their claim was that if the relief prayed for by the petitioner was granted, they would be adversely affected These respondents filed a joint written statement controverting the petitioner's stand and stating therein that the post of the Principal in NPS-18 still existed in the Agricultural Training Institute, Rahimyar Khan. It was never up-graded and an altogether new post of Director in NPS-19 was created which is to be filled according to the relevant Rules. According to these respondents, petitioner's seniority was maintained with Grade-18 Officers of the Extension Wing of the- Agriculture Department and he was, therefore, not entitled to the higher post superseding the officers senior to him.
10. The Agriculture Department and Services, General Administration and Information Department, respondents Nos, 1 and 2 have also filed what they have described as amended written statement though this is the only formal written statement filed by them and it is accompanied by a number of documents Annexures RA to R-36. Stand taken by the Government in they written statement is that there existed two separate and distinct posts in the Agrkultural Training Institute, Rabimyar Khan, one post of the Principal in NPS-18 and the other of the Director/Principal in NPS-19, even before the recruitment of the petitioner as Principal. The post of the Principal, it is stated, was sanctioned on permanent basis in NPS-18 vide letter dated 14-5-1974 Annexure R-3 and its expenditure was debitable to the Audit Head "40 Agriculture" whereas the post of the Director/Principal was newly created in NPS-19 on the introduction of 'Inservice Training Course' in the Agricultural Training Institute, Rahimyar Khan during the year 1977-78 under '3rd Education project' vide letter dated 13-7-1977 Annexure R/3-A and its expenditure was chargeable under the different budget head viz. "63-B-Dev-O-Agriculture-Third Education Project and provisions of additional facilities." The post of the Principal was filled by initial recruitment in terms of the provisions of the Punjab Agriculture Service (Class-I), Rules, 1965 as amended vide Notification dated 31-5-1972 and the petitioner was selected/ appointed against that post which he held until 21-1-1984. The other post of the Director/Principal, however, remained vacant. The Government reaffirmed its contention that the post of the Principal held by the petitioner was never up-graded and, therefore, he was not justified in his claim that he automatically stood elevated to the post in NPS-1.9.
11. Petitioner submitted a written reply by way of a rejoinder to the aforementioned written statement wherein he controverted the stand of the respondents that the post of Director/Principal in 'NPS-19 was sanctioned in addition to the post of the Principal in NPS-18. Petitioner appended with his reply as many as 47 documents Annexures P4 to P-47.
12.Case of the petitioner, briefly put, is that the post of the Principal (NPS-18) against which he was recruited was up-graded to NPS-19 and redesignated as Principal/Director and that he being the incumbent of the original post was entitled to hold the up-graded post. Contention of the respondents, on the other hand as noted hereinabove, is that the post of the Principal (NPS-18) was never up-graded. It existed as it was and in addition thereto, a new post in NPS-19 designated as Principal/Director was created and the method of recruitment for filling the newly created post was laid down by amending the relevant rules.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that the post of the Principal, Agricultural Training Institute, Rahimyar Khan was up-graded to NPS-19 referred to the Note of the Agriculture Department (Annex. F) particularly to the following statement therein "He was appointed to the post of Principal, Agricultural Training Institute, Rahimyar Khan in NPS-18 by initial recruitment through the Punjab Public Service Commission on 31-12-1977. The post of Principal was up-graded to NPS-19 w,e,f, 1-7-1978." (underlining is mine). Learned counsel also heavily relied upon two letters of Services General Administration and Information Department, Government of Punjab (Annexures H and P-3) wherein the said Department did not seem to accept the position of the Agriculture Department that there existed two posts in the Agricultual Training Institute, Rahimyar Khan, one of the Principal in NPS-18 and the other of the Principal/Director (NPS-19). The view expressed by the Services General Administration and Information Department was that there was only one post of Principal which was redesignated as Director/Principal. Learned counsel also drew attention to a letter of the Finance Department, Government of Punjab (P-5) which stated with reference to the subject of up-gradation of the post of Principal, Agricultural Training Institute, Rahimyar Khan that "It is incorrect to say that the post of Director Agriculture in NPS-19 was sanctioned under the developmental side in addition to the post of Principal in NPS-18 which already existed." Reference in this letter was made to the details of the staff required and which existed for the Agricultural Institute, Rahimyar Khan as shown in the Revised Pe-1 of the 3rd Education Project. This document is dated 5-6-1978 and is available on the present record as P-6. It shows that only one post of Director/Principal in NPS-19 was required in the Institute at Rahimyar Khan. Learned counsel also sought to draw support from a letter of the Agriculture Department dated 5-9-1977 (P-13) which stated in its last para "It is clarified that there were two posts of Principal in Grade-18 out of them one post at Sargodha has since been up-graded to Grade-19".
Learned counsel further argued that the up-graded post goes to the incumbent automatically provided he is \otherwise qualified to hold the post. For the proposition that the incumbent automatically moves to higher grade with the up-gradation of post and no formal orders of promotion are required to be passed, reliance was placed on 1972 PLC 552 (Lahore) and 1984 PLC (C.S.) 308. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon what he stated as a practice in the Government Departments that whenever some posts are upgraded, incumbents of those posts automatically stand appointed/promoted to the up-graded posts. Reference in this behalf was particularly made to a letter of the Health Department (P-47). Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner stood up-graded on the up-gradation of the post and thereby a right came to vest in him which could not be taken away by subsequent amendments made in the service rules prescribing a different method of appointment for the up-graded post. Learned counsel relied upon a case reported in PLD 1970 SC 439, wherein it was held that an Executive Authority cannot, in exercise of its rule-making power or the power to amend, vary or rescind an earlier order, take away right vested in a citizen by law.
14. Learned Advocate-General appearing for the Government submitted that the post of the Director in Grade-19 existed even before the recruitment of the petitioner as Principal and both the posts existed side by side in the Agricultural Training Institute, Rahimyar Khan. Reference for this submission was made to a letter of the Agriculture Department dated 13-7-1977 (Annex. R/3-A). It was contended by the Advocate-General that the petitioner' all along held the post of the Principal and was receiving the pay in Grade-18 which, it was submitted, was evident from pay bills (R-9 to R-14) and Nominal Rolls (R-15 to R-20). It was also pointed out that the petitioner was allowed to cross the efficiency bar in NPS-18 vide order dated 14-12-1982 (R-8). Learned Advocate-General then referred to a statement giving explanation of excesses and surrender (R-21) to show that the post of Director remained vacant and its pay was surrendered during the year 1979-80. It was pointed .out that this statement was signed by the petitioner. Reference was also made to similar statement for the years 1981-82, 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 (R-22 to R-25) which showed that the post of the Principal, Agricultural Training Institute, Rahimyar Khan remained vacant and pay thereof was surrendered during all these years. Basing himself on these documents, learned Advocate-General sought to argue that there existed two independent posts of the Principal (NPS- 18) and the Director (NPS-19) in the Agricultural Training Institute, Rahimyar Khan and as such there was no substance in the petitioner's claim that the post of the Principal was upgraded to NPS-19.
15. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of both the sides and have minutely examined various documents referred to .by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate-General. I find considerable force in the contention of the petitioner that the post of the Principal, Agricultural A Training Institute, Rahimyar Khan was up-graded to NPS-19 and was redesignated as Principal/Director. This contention finds support not only from the documents placed on record by the petitioner but also from the material produced by the respondents.
Documents relied upon by the petitioner viz. Annexure H, P-3, P-5 and P-6 have been referred to in some detail in para.13 ante and their contents need not be repeated again. It may, however, be noted that the letter of Agricultural Department (R/3-A) which the learned Advocate-General has appended with the written statement of the Government talked of only one post of Director/Principal, Agricultural .Training Institute, Rahimyar Khan (NPS-19). It did not refer to the post of the Principal in NPS-18. This letter quite clearly shows that the post of the Principal, Agricultural Training Institute, Rahimyar Khan was redesignated and up-graded as far back as the year 1977 though the method of its recruitment was provided much later when the relevant rules were amended on 25.2-1980. Again in the letters R-30, R-31, R-32, R-33 and R-34, administrative approval of the Governor of Punjab was accorded for one post of Director/Principal in NPS-19 and there is no reference in these letters to the post of Principal in NPS-18. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the post of Principal/Director in NPS-19 was created anew and it was in addition to the existing post of the Principal in NPS-18 which continued to exist.
16. That the post of the Principal, Agricultural Training Institute, Rahimyar Khan was up-graded to NPS-19 and was redesignated as Principal/Director is also supported by the provisions of West Pakistan Agriculture Service (Class-I) Rules, 1965 as amended. It has not been denied by the learned Advocate-General that the post of the Principal/Director in NPS-19 is duly provided for in these Rules. Reference may usefully be made to the relevant provisions of the rules as originally framed and to the amendments thereto made from time to time. (R-1, R-2 and Annex. D).
Post of the Principal, Agricultural Training Institute was included amongst the cadre posts specified in column No, 2 of Appendix 'A' to the aformentioned Rules.. It figured at serial No, 11 of the Appendix.
Method of recruitment of the said post as provided in the original rules was by promotion. It was so stated in rule 5(2)(a) which reads as follows:-- "(2) Appointment to the cadre posts of the Service shall be made in the following manner:-'
(a) Vacancies in the posts of Director of Agriculture, Director of Agriculture (Research Institute), Director of Soil Conservation, Superintending Engineer (Agriculture Machinery) and Principal of Agriculture Training Institute shall be filled by promotion;"
In column No, 3 of Appendix 'A' which, too, related to the method of recruitment, it was provided against entry No, 11 "By promotion from amongst members of the West Pakistan Agriculture Service (Class-II) on Extension side (including agronomy) with at least five years experience in the line and a total service of eight years in the Department".
The aforementioned Rules were amended in 1972 vide Notification dated 31st May, 1972 (R-2).
Amendments were made in rule 5(2) and in entry No, 11 of Appendix 'A' so as to provide that 50% of the vacancies in the posts of Principal Agricultural Training Institute, shall be filled by initial recruitment with Ph.D in Agriculture from a recognized University and the remaining 50% by promotion. It may pertinently be stated that the petitioner's recruitment as Principal, Agricultural Training Institute, Rahimyar Khan was mad& under the Rules so amended in 1972.
Amendments were again made through Notification dated 25-2-1980 (Annex. D) whereby clause
(e) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 and Appendix 'A' were substituted as follows:-- 'Rule 5(2)(e).--Vacancies in the posts of Director/Principal of Agricultural Training Institutes shall be filled in by selection on merit from among six senior most Grade-18 Officers of the Extension Wing of the Agriculture Department, seniority being considered only in case of officers of practically the same standard of merit with at least 13 years service in the department:-- Provided that if no suitable person is available for appointment by selection on merit, the vacancy may be filled in by initial recruitment possessing qualifications prescribed in column 3 against serial No, 11 of Appendix `A'."
Existing entry against serial No, 11 of Appendix 'A' as substituted is as follows:-- 1 2 3 4 11 Director/Principal Agricultural Training InstitutionPHD in Agricultural/ Agriculture Extension Education from a recognized University with 3 years teaching experience in Agriculture.
OR M.Sc. in Agriculture/ Agriculture Extension Education with 10 years teaching experience in AgricultureBy selection on merit from amongst six senior most grade 18 officers of the Extension Wing of the Department of Agriculture seniority being considered only in case of officers of Practically the same standard of merit with at least 13 years service in the Department.
Provided that if no suitable person is available for appointment by selection on merit the vacancy may be filled in by initial recruitment possessing qualifications prescribed in column 3.
17. The foregoing amendments in rule 5(2)(e) and in the entry at serial No, 11 of Appendix 'A' made on 25-2-1980 place it beyond doubt that the post of the Principal of Agricultural Training Institutes was redesignated as Director/ Principal and the same was up-graded as it was provided that the vacancies in the posts of Director/Principal shall be filled in by selection from amongst six senior most Grade-18 Officers. It is significant that the post of the Principal no more figures in the amended provisions of the rules. Confronted with this position, learned Advocate-General was unable to press his point any further and the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents quite frankly conceded that the post of the Principal was up-graded and redesignated as Director/Principal.
18.Next question which requires determination is whether the petitioner who was the incumbent of the post of the Principal in NPS-18 automatically moved to the higher grade when the post that he held was up-graded and was, therefore, entitled to hold the up-graded post of Director/Principal. Contention of the petitioner, of course, as noted hereinabove, is that he moved to the higher grade with the up-gradation of the post of the Principal. Learned Advocate-General, however, contended that since the post of the Principal against which the petitioner was originally appointed was a cadre post and the petitioner's seniority was also maintained with other Grade-18 Officers of the Extension Wing of the Agriculture Department, he could not claim to be entitled to the upgraded post by superseding the officers senior to him. Contention of the learned Advocate- General appears to have much substance. The principle invoked by the petitioner is applicable only in those cases where a post is a specific/specialised and an ex cadre post and that is up- graded or all the posts in a cadre are upgraded. In such cases, the incumbent of the post or all the incumbents would be placed in higher grade. In the instant case, however, the post of the Principal against which the petitioner was recruited was as per the advertisement (Annex. `A' with the writ petition) on all Punjab basis. It is also not denied that after his appointment, seniority of the petitioner was maintained with Grade-18 Officers of the Extension Wing of the Agriculture Department and the petitioner never objected to it. It is also not open to question that the post of the Principal was included in the cadre posts of Agriculture Service Class-I. Reference may pertinently be made to Rule 3 of the West Pakistan Agriculture Service (Class-I) Rules, 1965 which reads as follows:-- "3. Constitution and composition of service.- The Cadre posts of the service shall be the posts specified in column 2 of Appendix 'A' and such other Class-I posts in the Department as may be specified in this behalf by the Government from time to time."
Now the post of the Principal redesignated as Director/Principal, Agricultural Training Institute is amongst the cadre posts specified in column No,2 of the Appendix 'A' to the Rules and it figures at serial No, 11.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioner took up the stand that the post of the Director/Principal of the Agricultural Training Institute was provided for in the Punjab Agriculture Department (Extension Wing/Economic and IN marketing Wing) Service Rules, 1980 and that these rules related to different functional units in the Agriculture Department. Learned counsel further referred to the definition of cadre as given in rule 2.9 of the Civil Services Rules (Punjab) Volume I, Part-I, Chapter II. According to the said rule, cadre means "the strength of a service or a part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit." Argument of the learned counsel presumably was that the post of the Director/ Principal, Agricultural Training Institute as mentioned in the aforementioned Service Rules of 1980 was not a cadre post. I have examined the rules in question. Schedule attached to these rules shows that there are only two functional units stated therein namely Extension Wing and Economic and Marketing Wing and the post of Director/Principal, Agricultural Training Institute is mentioned at serial No, 5-A against the Extension Wing which is an independent unit. It may also be stated that the method of recruitment of this post and the qualification prescribed therefor under the aforementioned rules are also the same as were provided in the West Pakistan Agriculture Service (Class-I) Rules, 1965. Thus, viewed from whatever angle whether with reference to West Pakistan Agriculture Service (Class-I) Rules, 1965 or the Rules of 1980 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the post of the Director/Principal Agricultural Training Institute is a cadre post which is to be filled by selection on merits: Since the post of the Principal against which the petitioner was originally recruited was a cadre post on all Punjab basis and the seniority of the petitioner was also maintained with Grade-18 Officers of the Extension Wing of the Agriculture Department, on the up- gradation of this post, petitioner was not entitled to move on to the up-graded post in supersession of the officers senior to him. It may pertinently be observed that at one stage during the hearing of the case, I enquired from the petitioner that if his contention is accepted and he is allowed to move on to the up-graded post of Principal/Director, would he stick to that post and not compete with other officers in the Extension Wing for higher posts in NPS-20 and upwards? His reply was in the negative. This shows that the petitioner himself did not treat the post of the Principal, Agricultural Training Institute, Rahimyar Khan as a specific/specialised post and he wanted to compete for promotion with other officers in the Extension Wing.
' In the aforesaid view of the matter, the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no avail to him. Petitioner, as held above, was not entitled to hold the up-graded post and as such there was no question of taking away any vested right.
Upshot of the above discussion is that the amendments made in the relevant Rules vide the impugned Notification (Annex. 'D') whereby it was provided that the post of the Principal/Director, Agricultural Training Institute shall be filled in by selection on merit from amongst six senior most Grade-18 Officers is not open to any exception. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs.