' NOOR MUHAMMAD MAGSI (MEMBER).---The appellant in this case is working as Office Superintendent (B-13) in Custom House, Rawalpindi. His claim for promotion against 5% of the total strength of Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise and Custom was rejected vide Custom House Rawalpindi's Order dated 5-3-1994 against which he filed Appeal No, 135R/94. But surprisingly however, the learned counsel for the appellant withdrew this appeal to seek proper remedy according to law. The request of the learned counsel was allowed and the appellant's appeal was disposed of as withdrawn by this Tribunal vide its order dated 9-4-1994.
' The appellant however, did not keep silent and he moved yet another representation on 16-4-1994 addressed to the Chairman, CBR seeking the same relief and then filed Appeal No, 355(R)/94 on 15-8-1994 which was also disposed of by order of the Tribunal dated 16-10-1994. Although this appeal was not against any particular order but in view of the statements of the parties one month's time was allowed to respondent-department to finalise the matter and passed appropriate order. The appellant was however, at liberty to come to the Tribunal in accordance with the law by filing fresh appeal. Since no order was passed by the department within one month's time as allowed by the Tribunal to finalise the matter, therefore, the appellant filed Miscellaneous Petition No,157/94 in Appeal No, 355-R of 1994. This petition was also disposed of by this Tribunal vide its judgment dated 23-2-1995, which is to the following effect:-- "By way of Miscellaneous Petition No, 157/94, Ehsanullah, petitioner has sought implementation of Tribunal's Order dated 16-10-1994 passed in Appeals Nos. 355 and 367(R) of 1994. The department in their comments and also at the time of hearing submitted that the Order . Of the Tribunal has been implemented inasmuch as Ahmad Nawaz Shah (appellant in Case No, 367(R)/94) who was at Serial No, 9 of the list approved by the D.P.C. Has already been promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent while Ehsanullah, who was at Serial No, 20 of the list, could not be promoted being at the bottom of the list. It was submitted that Ehsanullah will also be promoted on his turn after the promotion of his seniors in the approved list at Serial Nos. 10 to 19. We have examined the Order of the Tribunal dated 16-10-1994, the petition and the comments filed by the department and agree with the department that the orders of the Tribunal have been implemented. The Miscellaneous Petition No, 157/94 is disposed of accordingly."
3. It is really surprising that once again the appellant called in question letter No, 24/1/92-ACE-II, dated 29-12-1994 whereby six persons against whom he claimed to be junior to him, were promoted. Once again he filed the present appeal against the aforesaid order repeating the same story as had been done by him in his earlier appeals and Miscellaneous Petition.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Javed Aziz Sandhu learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondent-department. Appellant's claim of seniority was rejected as far back as 5-3-1994 and appeal filed before this Tribunal against that order was withdrawn by his counsel. As such he could not plead the case of his being senior to those promoted as Deputy Superintendent, Custom. The promotions to the post of Deputy Superintendent which the appellant has been challenging again and again are in accordance with SRO 249(1)/79, dated 15-3-1979, relevant part of which reads as follows:-- "incumbents of eligible junior posts will be promoted only when incumbents of the eligible senior posts are not available."
' Notwithstanding the upgradation of the post of Stenotypists and Assistants/Statistical Assistants, Office Superintendents have been getting promotion more than others, although they had become in higher grades than those of Office Superintendents because Selection Grade Stenotypists were placed in B-14 whereas Office Superintendents were in B-13. Therefore, in order to make equitable distribution of 5% quota among the free cadre i,e, Office Superintendents, Stenotypists and Assistants/Statistical Assistants, persons others than Office Superintendents, who were earlier deprived of their rights have been promoted by the Department from time to time. The Assistants/Statistical Assistants were inserted in the rules with the prior approval of the Establishment Division and the appellant's appeal against those rules had already been dismissed by the Tribunal because the Government has full power to frame and amend the rules in the public interest. The departmental representative stated that according to 1979 Rules Stenographers, Stenotypists, Office Superintendents and Head Clerks were eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent against 5% quota as such there was a combined seniority list in the post of the aforementioned cadres on all Pakistan basis. Later on Stenographers were deleted from the said SRO due to enhancement of their grades from B-11 to B-15 as post of Deputy Superintendent was in B-14. Since the appellant's appeal against the amendment in the rules was withdrawn by his counsel the order of rejection of his representation against' those rules attained finality and he ceases to have any claim of his seniority.
5. The present appeal of the appellant is so badly drafted that it makes us hardly to understand as to what he is actually challenging but the close scrutiny of the facts has revealed that the appellant is challenging the same thing again and again by way of different appeals and in order to suppress the order sought to be challenged he made a hutch-patch of facts in the memo. Of appeal. Nevertheless he cannot be allowed to challenge the same order again and again. Under the law once the matter has been adjudicated upon on the same cause of action it cannot be reconsidered for the same cause. Therefore, the matter falls within the principle of res judicata.
6. As far his grievance with Mr. Ahmed Nawaz Shah who had been promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent by order dated 29-12-1994 is concerned, he was admittedly senior to him and the departrnental. Representative made it clear that the appellant will also get his promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent on his own turn because according to SRO dated 15-3-1979 incumbents of eligible juniors post will be promoted only when incumbents of the eligible senior posts are not available, that being the position the appellant shall have to wait for his turn.
7. As a result of the above, the claim for promotion of the appellant as Deputy Superintendent is without any substance. Even otherwise, the appeal is incompetent and not maintainable the same is, therefore, dismissed with costs.
8. Parties be informed: