SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 27-2-1989 whereby his appeal was held to be incompetent and dismissed for that reason.
2. The Petitioner was a teacher in Grade-15 and was superseded for selection grade (B-17). His juniors were promoted and he was not. He challenged the action by an appeal to the Service Tribunal. In the reply to the averments made in memo of appeal, the Government had taken the stand that the record of the service of the Petitioner was not satisfactory and he was not considered suitable for promotion to the selection grade for that reason. The petitioner did not file any supplementary statement to contend that he had not been communicated any adverse remarks or that the Departmental Promotion Committee while judging his suitability, alongwith others, had committed any legal error. ~In the absence of it, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that in fact he had been superseded for unsatisfactory record. As it was a matter of selection and suitability the Tribunal's jurisdiction did not extend to such cases.
3. Mr. M.S. Siddiqui, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the confidential record of the petitioner was produced before the Tribunal, indeed it contained some reports which were adverse to him. But, on an enquiry from the Tribunal it was not made clear whether those adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner or not. If they had not been communicated as claimed by the petitioner, they could not be taken into consideration by the Tribunal. In his affidavit, filed in this Court, the petitioner has taken stand that these ACRs "were re- written and reconstructed by Respondent No.1, at the time his promotion to T.G.T. Selection Grade was under consideration and some adverse remarks were deliberately included therein in order to bar his promotion".
4. If the petitioner wanted to raise a factual controversy he had to do so before the Tribunal. This is not the forum for entertaining the same for the first time stage. The petitioner should have actually filed a supplementary statement if he wanted to challenge the correctness or effect of the reply filed by the Government. Having not 'done that, and the question being of suitability, the judgment of the Departmental Promotion Committee must prevail and cannot be substituted by the Tribunal.
Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.