' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner, a civil servant who has retired from service in 1988, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 26-5-1986 whereby his service appeal was dismissed and he was denied the benefit of move-over to the next higher scale of pay on the ground of belonging to technical and professional category having passed the departmental examination of Subordinate Accounts Service.
2. The petitioner was in Basic Pay Scale 17 on 1-12-1983 and he claimed that the instructions issued and enforced from 1-7-1983 as hereunder governed him:-- "6. The existing concession of 'move-over' of employees from RNPS-16 (B-16) to RNPSA-17 (B-17) and RNPS-17 (B-17) to RNPS-18 (B-18) shall be extended upto B-20 and regulated as under:-
(a) ....
(b) ....
(c) The move-over in the case of technical and professional categories e.g. Doctors, Engineers, Educationists, Economists, Management Accountants, Scientists, Archaelogists, Geologists, Meteorologists, Experts of Agrigulture, Animal Husbandry and Forestry shall be permissible upto B- 20 without the condition of stay at the maximum for three years."
' The department as well as the Service Tribunal refused to treat the petitioner as a technical or professional employee of the category for whom the benefit had been announced.
3. Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to various other instructions in order to make out a case for the petitioner's belonging to the technical and professional category merely on the strength of having qualified at the Subordinate Accounts Service examination.
4. The Subordinate Accounts Service examination is a departmental examination restricted to the employees. It is not a technical or professional qualification available to the citizens, seeking it but is directed towards ensuring efficiency and expertise within the department. Outside the department such qualification does not have any recognition though the employment in the Accounts Office may give some standing and qualifications to an employee. We find that the Tribunal has taken a correct view of the instruction and no question of law arises in the case.
' Leave to appeal is refused.