' NOOR MUHAMMAD MAGSI (MEMBER).---Appellant Mr. Liaqat Ali was working as Welfare Inspector (BPS-12) in the Pakistan Railways when he was inducted as Assistant Personnel Officer (BPS-17) in relaxation of rules by the competent authority vide Gazette Notification dated 24th October, 1989.
Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 namely M/s. Ch. Muhammad Akbar and Ch. Muhammad Ali, were promoted as Assistant Personnel Officer (BPS-17) vide Notification, dated 15th October, 1992 while respondent No,7 Mrs. Anjum Talat, vide Notification dated 2nd November, 1992. Respondents 5 and 6 were further promoted as Senior Personnel Officer (BPS-18) vide Notification dated 12-5-1993 and respondent No, 7 was posted to hold the post of senior Personnel Officer (BPS-18) vide Notification dated 17-11-1993. These promotion of the respondents 5 to 7 gave rise to the grievance to the appellant and he made representation to the Secretary, Establishment Division and the Chairman/Secretary, Ministry of Railways on 29-11-1993 but the same remained unresponded. He then preferred this appeal before the Service Tribunal on 27-3-1994 with the prayer that promotion of respondents Nos.5 to 7 be quashed and instead he may be promoted to BPS-18.
2. The grievance of the appellant in nutshell is that on having been inducted as personnel officer much earlier than the respondents, he was senior to them and as such was entitled to promotion to B-18 over and above them.
3. The respondents have resisted the appeal and filed comments. It has been stated that induction of the appellant as Assistant Personnel Officer (BPS-17) was made in relaxation of relevant rules and as such his appointment was ad hoc and he was not entitled to any seniority unless his appointment was regularised according to law. They have also raised legal objection that the appeal is hit by section 4(i) (b) of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973. The same grounds were reiterated by Mr. Munib Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the Pakistan Railways and Mr. Ainuddin, learned counsel for private respondents 5 and 7.
4. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record. The appellant at the time of his induction as Assistant Personnel Officer was working as Welfare Inspector (B-12) and there was no concept of induction in the cadre of Assistant Personnel Officer (BS-17) under the rules and promotion to these posts could only be made from the departmental eligible candidates on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness for which proper procedure has been prescribed. As Notification says, the appellant's induction as Assistant Personnel Officer was made in relaxation of the rules in utter disregard of the mandatory provision of law, as there was neither any exigency nor the appellant was such an indispensable person that he was the only person available in the Department for promotion, but the fact is that his induction/promotion was politically motivated and any appointment made otherwise than in accordance with the provision of rules, cannot be deemed to be a regular appointment but it is an ad hoc appointment which does not reckon for seniority. On the other hand all the respondents Nos. 5 to 7 were promoted to BPS-18 on regular basis and the appellant had no locus standi to claim promotion to BPS-18 on the plea that he was appointed earlier than the respondents.
5. As discussed above, the induction/promotion of the appellant as Assistant Personnel Officer (BPS-17) was ad hoc and as such he cannot equate himself with the regular promotions of the respondents in BPS-17 as Assistant Personnel Officer and cannot claim promotion over and above them. Furthermore, the prayer for claiming promotion to BPS-18 is barred from the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under proviso (b) to section 4 (1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
6. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal having no merit is dismissed with costs .