MUHAMMAD ASLAM, MEMBER-I.- The appellant as Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineer, was deputed to the Local Govt. & Rural Development Department and posted as Superintending Engineer, Local Govt. & Rural Development on 12.10.1995 vice Mian Muhammad Yousaf, relieving the latter of the additional charge of the post of Superintending Engineer. On 20.11.1996, he was repatriated by the Local Govt. & Rural Development Department to his parent department with immediate effect. He went to the Lahore High Court against this order of repatriation. The Lahore High Court suspended the impugned order on 24.11.1996. Meanwhile, respondent No. 2 passed another order on 16.12.1996 transferring him and directing him to report to the Local Govt. & Rural Development Department for further orders. He again moved the Lahore High Court against the order dated 16.12.1996. The writ petition was ultimately withdrawn. After this, he find the instant appeal before this Tribunal against the order dated 16.12.1996.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that his repatriation to parent department should have been ordered according to rules and policy and that the order dated 16.12.1996 has no force as there is no other equivalent post in the Local Govt. & Rural Development Department where the appellant can be posted and that the said order dated 16.12.1996 was passed with mala fide intention.
3. Mr. M.A. Riaz, Advocate submitted a miscellaneous application on behalf of Mr. Shabhir Ahmed Chughtai Superintending Engineer, Local Govt. & Rural Development Department. He was allowed to make submissions at the preliminary stage, although the appellant has not impleaded him as a party in the instant appeal. Mr. M.A. Riaz has contended that Mr. Chughtai is an officer of the Local Govt. & Rural Development Department, is a regular Superintending Engineer as he has been regularly promoted as such by the competent authority in the prescribed manner and therefore has got exclusive claim on the solitary post of Superintending Engineer in the department instead of any outsider deputationist. He further submitted that this Tribunal has already adjudicated upon the appointment of Mr. Chughtai vide judgment dated 10.11.1996 in Appeal No. 484/95 and therefor any order in favour of the appellant in the instant appeal would be contrary to the said judgment.
He therefore pleaded that a situation of conflict of opinion may be avoided.
4. The case was argued at length. It was noticed that the department had only 3 options in this case namely (i) to post the appellant against any equivalent post in the department. Iii) to re-post him as Superintending Engineer, .(iii) to repatriate appellant to the parent department. There being no other equivalent post in the department, option No. (i) is pre-cluded. As for option No. (ii) it is not possible to resort to it in view of this Tribunal judgment referred to above. Option No. Iii)) is not available in view of the stay by the Lahore High Court on the petition of the appellant himself. This has created a situation* of stalemate for the department: the only course left with .Them is to repatriate him to the parent department but this course has been blocked by the appellant himself by obtaining a stay order from the Hon'ble Lahore High Court.
6. Mr. M.A. Riaz, Advocate strongly argued that any order purporting to install any person other than Mr. Chughtai as Superintending Engineer would require review of the judgment of this Tribunal referred to above, which this Tribunal is not competent to do.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was hot a party in the judgment of this Tribunal dated 10.11.1996 in Appeal No. 484/96 referred to above and therefore the said judgment could not be enforced against him. It was pointed out by Mr. M.A. Riaz, Advocate that the appellant was not impleaded as party in the said judgment because he was not holding the post of Superintending Engineer at the time of institution of Appeal No. 484/95 and that the appellant was posted as Superintending Engineer by bringing him on deputation during the pendency of the said appeal which was itself mala fide and in any case, non-pleading of the appellant in the case of judgment referred to above could not be challenged before this Tribunal, and if case the appellant has to agitate against the said judgment, he should move the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The learned District Attorney also agreed that the proper course for the appellant is to seek repatriation by withdrawing the petition from the Lahore High Court unless he could be adjusted against any other post in the Local Govt. & Rural Development Department on deputation, which is not possible, there being no other equivalent post in the department. The learned District Attorney therefore observed that the appeal is not maintainable for the reasons discussed above.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant intended to further study the case law to show that he could make further submissions whether he could seek a remedy from this Tribunal as he felt aggrieved of the judgment of this Tribunal dated 10.11.1996 referred to above.
9. Arguments were heard. We do not think that it would serve the ends of justice to prolong the arguments in this case.
10. The appeal is dismissed in limine.