' ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---Appellant Mr. Sakhi Muhammad Khattak was working as Sub-Engineer B/R Grade-1 (BPS-11) under the Engineer-in-Chief presently, he is on LPR. In this appeal, he has challenged the order, dated 6th July, 1987 issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, whereby his juniors were promoted to Grade-16 (and redesignated as Assistant Engineer B/R) and he was superseded. He has prayed that the respondents be directed to consider the case of the appellant for promotion or pro forma promotion with effect from 8-7-1987 in accordance with law as Assistant Engineer (BPS-16) with all back and consequential benefits and the unauthorised guidelines (criteria) for Departmental Promotion Committee civilian persons in BPS-16 wrongly issued by respondent No, 3 be struck down and declared ultra vires of section 25 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973.
2. We have heard Dr. G.S. Khan, the learned Advocate for the appellant at length. It is argued that the Departmental Selection Committee has not followed guidelines and the law, therefore, injustice has been done to the appellant and his case be again referred to the Committee. It has been argued that the appellant filed Writ Petition No, 264 of 1989 before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench and also application for contempt as the directions of the High Court were not being followed by the respondent-department.
3. It is a matter of record that the appellant earlier also filed Appeal No,333(R) of 1987 in which the prayer was almost identical for the sake of convenience, the prayer clause in that appeal is reproduced below:- ' It is, therefore, prayed that these guidelines being without lawful authority be declared as void and without jurisdiction and inapplicable to the case of the appellant from the start. It may also be directed that the appellant's case for promotion be considered alongwith the original batch on the basis of valid principles governing promotion."
' Earlier appeal was decided by the Tribunal by judgment dated 20-4-1989 as being not, competent and was accordingly dismissed. There were some observation that appeal could only be submitted against final order whether original of appellate concerning the terms and conditions of a civil servant and it was obligatory for the appellant to have submitted a departmental appeal before coming to the Tribunal. It was also observed that in this case it was noted that no specific order concerning the appellant has been objected to, nor was any departmental appeal filed we have also gone through the memo. Of Appeal No, 333 (R)/1987 and in paragraph 4, it is stated that the appellant's juniors were promoted on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee vide letter, dated 6th July, 1987. The same order is impugned in this appeal also. Appeal No,333(R) of 1987 was dismissed by this Tribunal and the appellant challenged the judgment of the Tribunal in that appeal before the Supreme Court by filing Civil Petition No,336-R of 1989, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 12-12-1989. After dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal, the appellant filed Writ Petition No,264/1989 in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, with the prayer that his case be considered for promotion in accordance with law alongwith back benefits and for interim relief for restraining the respondents from making further promotions. He also filed application under the Contempt of Court Act. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 18-4-1993 on the basis of undertaking by reapondent as that the case of the appellant will be placed before the D.P.C. For further consideration. Finally, the contempt application was also disposed of by the High Court by order dated 11-10-1993 and the following order was passed.
"Learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that as per commitment made before this Court, the case of the petitioner for the promotion was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee on 28-7-1993 but he was not recommended for promotion by the said Committee. Learned counsel further states that the petitioner himself has gone on L.P.R. With effect from 12-7-1993. Hence the respondents have not disobeyed the order of this Court.
2. In view of the above, it is not a fit case for further proceeding in the matter. The criminal original is, therefore, dismissed.
4. Exhausting all these remedies, as stated above, the appellant once again has come up before the Tribunal and filed this Appeal No,49 (R) of 1994 on 3-2-1994 with the identical prayer that the respondents be directed to consider the case of the appellant for promotion.
5. Appeal No,333 (R) of 1987 of the appellant was finally disposed of by this Tribunal and civil appeal filed before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Tribunal was dismissed as withdrawn.
Therefore, the order of the Tribunal as regards prayer reached to the finality. He chose to file Writ Petition in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench which was disposed of with the observations that the respondents should reconsider the case of the appellant according to law within three months. The case of the appellant was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee but he was not promoted, and in view of this fact, the appellant's criminal original was dismissed by the High Court. The appellant made a departmental appeal on 25-10-1993 to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence for non-consideration of his case for promotion just to cover the limitation, he has again come up before us for the same relief. The question of limitation in this appeal apart, the question of res judicata is also involved in this appeal. The appellant cannot come before the Tribunal for the same cause of action which stood already decided not only by this Tribunal but also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appellant was not promoted although his case for promotion was duly considered by the D.P.C. In accordance with law and also on the directions of the High Court. The appellant has again impugned the same order which was the subject-matter of Appeal No,333(R) of 1987 which was dismissed. We are afraid that we cannot admit this appeal and it will be an exercise in futility on the following grounds:
(1) That his Appeal No,333(R) of /1987 dismissed by the Tribunal as also by the Supreme Court in Civil Petition No,336-R of 1989 on 12-12-1989 reached to the finality.
(2) The case of the appellant was reconsidered on the directions of the High Court and was rejected, and hence could not be promoted.
(3) The reopening of the case for the same cause of action and against the same impugned order is hopelessly barred by limitation.
(4) Tribunal cannot from time to time issue directions when matter was considered by D.P.C. And scope for Tribunal under section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 for promotion is limited.
' For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails on merits as well as on legal points of limitation and res judicata, and is accordingly dismissed in limine.