' ROSHAN ALI MANGI (MEMBER).---The respondent No, 1 invited applications through Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC), for the appointment of the post of Data Control Officers (B-17) vide advertisement dated 2-2-1995.
2. Aggrieved by this advertisement, the appellant preferred a departmental appeal on 8-2-1995, to respondent No, 1, on the ground that, allocating of vacancy to direct recruit quota was, not in order.
However, his appeal was turned down, besides this disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against him for challenging the authority of the respondent No, 2.
3. The appellant, therefore, has fired this appeal, with a prayer, to direct the respondent No, 2 not to make direct recruitment in the vacancy of Data Control Officers, as it is allotted to promotion quota under recruitment rules of June, 1990.
4. Stating briefly the facts of the case, there were three posts of the Data Control Officers in the Computer Wing of FPSC. The first post of the Data Control Officer was created sometime in 1980, which was filled by appointing Mr. Salabat Ali through FPSC. He was transferred to the Pakistan Computer Bureau in 1983. In his place, Mr. Arshad Mehmood was promoted against 66.33% promotion quota, as provided under recruitment rules.
5. The second post of Data Control Officer was created in 1984. According to appellant, it should have been filled by promotion under the rules, but it was filled by direct recruitment of Mr. Ghulam Murtaza.
6. The third post was created in 1987, against which Mr. Habib-urRehman was recruited through the FPSC.
7. The promotion of Mr. Ghulam Murtaza to the post of System Analyst (B-18) in 1990, created a vacancy which was filled by Mr. Arshad Hussain Kazmi on his promotion, w,e,f, 11th February, 1991.
8. Mr. Ghulam Murtaza was dismissed from service in 1994. According to the appellant the vacancy so created was allocatable to promotion quota under the rules.
9. However, the appellant maintains that, instead of filling this vacancy through promotion, it had been advertised in the press on 2-2-1995, for recruiting the Data Control Officer directly. As such a number of employees, including the appellant who was otherwise eligible for promotion, through regular selection process, have been deprived of such an opportunity.
10. It has been further stated that the appellant submitted a departmental appeal on 8-2-1995 against the decision of the respondent No, 2, but instead of getting positive response, he was directed vide letter dated 27th of February, 1995 to submit his explanation as to why he had requested for his promotion which was against the provision of Civil Servants Act, 1973.
11. The appellant submitted his reply to aforementioned memo. On 13-3-1995, wherein he had stated that he did neither violate the rule nor challenge any order/authority. He simply had represented against the distribution of promotion/direct quota of the posts of the Data Control Officer.
12. The respondent filed their objections, but without mentioning any date. However, it has been stated that there are 3 sanctioned posts of Data Control Officers (B-17) in the office of the F.P.S.C. As per notified Recruitment Rules, the posts are to be filled 50% by promotion and 50% initial appointment. Presently two posts have been filled, one by the promotees and one by direct recruitees. The incumbents of the posts are M/s. Habib-ur-Rehman (by initial appointment and S. Arshad Hussain Kazmi (by promotion).
13. In terms of Establishment Division O.M. No, 21/1/90-R-5 dated 31-7-1991 the % of the quota of the posts to be calculate on each vacancy, by maintaining of roster, rather than total number of the posts. The last vacancy has been filled by promotion of Mr. S. Arshad Hussain Kazimi, as Data Control Officer in the year 1991. The present vacancy has become available, due to termination of service of incumbent of the post (Mr. Arshad Mehmood) with effect from 12-10-1994. This vacancy has been allocated to initial appointment as per roster of the vacancy and as per Government instructions quoted above.
14. As the last vacancy has been filled by observing promotions quota by appointment of Mr. S. Arshad Hussain Kazmi, and as such now available vacancy in terms of Establishment Division O.M.
Dated 31-7-1991, is being filled by initial appointment.
15. It has also been pointed out, that Computer Wing was created in FPSC in the years 1981, and to run the affairs of the Wing Proper Recruitment Rules were notified in 1983, and thereafter, amended the same w,e,f, 12-6-1990, vide Notification S.R:O. 642(1)/190 as per requirement of the newly wing created wing.
16. The Tribunal, was further informed, that on representation regarding promotion, the appellant was told verbally and made clear to him that, as per Recruitment Rules of 1990, existing Government instruction as well as roster maintained for vacancies that next vacancy as and when become available would surely be allocated to promotion quota, and that the appellant being the senior most would be considered for promotion against that post. It was also added that although as per Civil Servants Act, 1973 no representation/appeal lies for matters relating to promotion and fitness of promotion.
17. We have heard both the counsel, and peruse the record made available on the file. We feel that the action taken by the respondent, is in consonance with O.M. Dated 31-7-1991, wherein it has been provided that % of the posts would be calculated on each vacancy by maintaining roster, and not the total number of posts. Since, the last vacancy was filled by promotion against which Mr. Arshad Kazmi was accommodated, therefore, the present vacancy that has occurred due to the terminating the services of Mr. Arshad Mehmood, would go to the initial appointment.
18. Since the last post was filled by the promotion, hence, the new post would obviously' be filled by direct recruitment of the Data Control Officer. As such the action taken by the, respondents is in order. We, therefore, are not inclined to subscribe to the view of the appellant. The appeal has no merits, hence is dismissed with no order as to costs.
19. Parties be informed.