ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CAHIRMAN).---Appellant Mr. Muhammad Saleem was appointed as Assistant Engineer (BPS-16) in Northern Areas PWD with effect from 1-1-1983. He was subsequently appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer (BPS-17) on ad hoc basis, with effect from 11-8-1987 for a period of six months or till the availability of FPSC nominee, vide letter dated 12th August, 1987. In pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Federal Public Service Commission for recruitment of 20 posts of Assistant Executive Engineers. The appellant along with others, including respondent No. 5, appeared and according to merit position assigned by the Commission, the appellant was at S.No. 22, while respondent No.5 at S.No. 29, and their cases were not recommended for want of vacancies. In the meanwhile, two pots of Assistant Executive Engineers fell vacant and against one post the individual who got merit position in the FPSC Examination at S.No. 21 was accommodated, and the second post was filled up by appointing respondent No. 5, whose merit position was 29, while the appellant who was at S.No. 22, was ignored. Being aggrieved, the appellant made a departmental appeal on 3-1-1994 which remained unresponded. He then filed this appeal before the Tribunal on 10-4-1994, with the prayer that appointment order of respondent No. 5, Mr. Muhammad Tayyab as Assistant Executive Engineer be set aside and appellant may be considered for appointment as Assistant Executive Engineer.
2. The comments have been filed by the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs and also the respondent No. 5, and we have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Mr. Raja Muhammad Asghar Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant qualified in the FPSC Examination but subsequently respondent No. 5 who had less merit being at S. No. 29, was taken in service. It is argued that respondent No. 5 who was initially appointed in BPS-17 in the Local Bodies and Rural Development and was subsequently transferred to NA PWD was illegal as the order was not issued with the approval of the Secretary, Establishment Division, who was the competent authority.
4. Mr. Zakaullah Jan, Section Officer, Establishment Division submitted that in such matters the KANA Division has authorised the Heads of the Departments in the Northern Areas to issue posting and transfer orders in respect of BPS-17 officers working under their administrative control, and the Establishment Division had nothing to do in this case.
5. Dr. G.S. Khan, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 argued that proper facts have not been placed before the Tribunal as the services of the appellant were terminated and he filed Appeal No. 259 (R)/92 before the Tribunal and on reinstatement he was taken in service, and the respondent No. 5 again appeared in the examination and he was selected and a few months thereafter his selection, he was transferred to NA.PWD, in the public interest, therefore, his appointment is proper and the appellant has no vested right for claiming appointment in BPS-17 in his place.
6. Mr. M Javid Aziz Sandhu, the learned standing counsel for respondents 1 to 4 has argued that the Tribunal has got limited jurisdiction with regard to promotions and appointments, therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
7. The appellant was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer on ad hoc basis for a period of six months or till the availability of a FPSC nominee. He and respondent No. 5, in pursuance to the FPSC advertisement appeared in the examination but none of them was recommended by FPSC for appointment having less merit position and further that such candidates cannot be retained on the panel for an indefinite period on waiting list but under the rules fresh requisition has to be made to the Commission and fresh candidates are to be selected. Respondent No. 5 was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in BPS-17 in the Local Bodies and Rural Development Department on the recommendations of the Commission vide offer of appointment letter dated 17-10-1993 and thereafter he was transferred to NA PAID under section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 with the approval of the competent authority vide order dated 4-12-1993. This posting of the respondent No. 5 under section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 was in accordance with the rules as laid down in the Office Memorandum No.F.II.2/27/78, dated 1 March, 1990 issued by the Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs Division. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for respondent No. 5 submitted that the appellant was reinstated by the Tribunal and he is presently working in Grade-16 as Store Keeper and the intention of the Tribunal was just to accommodate him so that he may not be deprived of his job. Whatever may be the facts of that case but the position is that the appellant having secured less merit was never recommended for appointment as Assistant Executive Engineer (BPS-17) by the Federal Public Service Commission and as such he cannot claim, as of right, appointment to that post, as both were reverted to BPS-16 and selectees of FPSC were appointed, and such a prayer or claim is not amenable to our jurisdiction as provided under proviso (b) to section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and also case has no merit.
8. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal stands dismissed but with no order as to costs.