' The appellant Dr. Munir Ahmad, Assistant Director, Livestock Production Extension, Gujrat was placed in BS-17 with effect from 1-5-1977 and reached its maximum on 1-12-1985. He stayed at that stage for one year ending on 1-12-1986 when he became elegible for move-over to B.S.
18. Allegedly he earned average reports for the five preceding years, as none adverse was ever communicated to him, and yet he- was informed by the letter dated 24-3-1991 (Annex. C) that his case for the move-over was deferred due to four average ACRs, Contrary to it, he was promoted to B.S. 17 on officiating basis just two months later, that is on 25-5-1991 (Annex. D) and relying on this qualitative advancement in his career, he represented to again consider his case for grant of move-over, but unluckily it was declined vide the order dated 25-5-1992 (Annex. G). He made a further representation to the Governor in view of the ratio of Falak Sher's case reported in PLD 1989 SC 562 and finding that the same was not disposed of within 90 days, brought the instant appeal.
2. His claim mainly was that he was entitled to move-over with effect from 1-12-1986 under the Government of the Punjab, Finance Department Notification No, FD.PC-2-1/83 dated 25-5-1983 (copy Annex. I) which to his reading clearly provided that normal procedure for promotion applicable to granting move-over from B.S. 19 to 20 did not apply to the move-over from BS-17 to 18; and that he fulfilled the requirements contemplated by the Finance Department Notification dated 2-3-1986 (Annex. J) of possessing his record free from adverse remarks for the last 5 years and average to good reports which meant that those should not be below average. He urged that his case was wrongly deferred by applying the notification dated 5-3-1991 (Annex. L) which insisted upon having at least two good plus three average reports for the move-over from B.S. 17 to 18.
According to him, the said notification could apply prospectively and not to his case accruing due on 1-12-1986 which instead was governed by the Notification dated 2-3-1986 (Annex. J). He reiterated that his subsequent promotion to BS-17 preeminently held him eligible to get the move- over as the same ACRs could not be considered to be inadequate for one and adequate for the other.
3. The respondents adhered to their view that the Notification 5-3-1991 (Annex. L) was applicable to the appellant's case and that since he could not earn two good reports, he was not entitled to the move-over. They added that his officiating promotion to BS-17, being to the same scale which he was already availing, did not mean much and that his average reports for all the five years did not qualify him for claiming it from 1-12-1986.
4. Since the appellant claimed the move-over w.e.f, 1-12-1986, the notification dated 25-5-1983, then in force applied to his case. There is no doubt that the notification dated 5-3-1991 (Annex. L) could not have been invoked in a retrospective manner to govern his case. These are at best the rules and the rules are not retrospective in their application so far as the appellant is concerned.
5. Next, the earlier notification (Annex. J) required five average to good reports. It does not specify how many good and how many average reports were needed. Those could therefore be either mixed or all average or all good. Further, what the rule (Annex. J) emphasises more is that there should be no adverse remarks during those five years, and a fortiori absence of adverse remarks would imply that the ACRs were contrarily good. Average reports are not communicated. Why?
Because those are not considered adverse, and correspondingly might be taken to be synonymous with good reports.
6. The added reason in this case to treat them to be equivalent to good reports, was that the appellant was lately promoted to BS-17 on officiating basis. Promotion whether regular or officiating has a deep nexus with the previous performance. Naturally those very ACRs must have been considered and accepted as good. To hold them otherwise for the move-over was some blatantly inconsistent and cannot be permitted.
7. Last but not the least, it was observed in PLD 1992 SC 144 that average reports, not communicated would be deemed to be generally good. As already noted above, none of them was admittedly conveyed to the appellant. Those clearly sufficed to entitle the appellant to get the move-over from 1-12-1986. The appeal is allowed.