' Muhammad Sarwar Shad, a Joint Director (Grade-18) in the Punjab Small Industries Corporation, a Statutory Corporation established under the Punjab Small Industries Corporation Act of 1973 (Act XV of 1973), brought this Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, assailing the order of the Punjab Small Industries Corporation (respondent No, 1) dated the 29th of January, 1990 (Annexure B), whereby the then Minister for Industries and Mineral Development Department/Chairman, Punjab Small Industries Corporation, was pleased to order the upgradation of the post of the Vigilance Officer from Grade-17 to Grade- 18 and also promotion of the incumbent thereto with effect from 23rd of January, 1990.
' The incumbent was Mr. Khalid Tareen (Vigilance Officer) (respondent No, 4).
2. The Punjab Small Industries Corporation having been established under the Punjab Small Industries Corporation Act of 1973, framed its own rules under the Act and are called the Punjab Small Industries Corporation Service and Recruitment Rules of 1976.
' Mr. Muhammad Sarwar Shad petitioner, and Mr. Khalid Tareen (respondent No, 4) are, therefore, neither civil servants nor are they governed by the English common law theory of Master and Servant. The Corporation itself and its employees and their relationship inter se is regulated by the Punjab Small Industries Corporation Act of 1973 and the Service and Recruitment Rules of 1976.
3. Mr. Muhammad Sarwar Shad petitioner entered the employment of the Corporation on the 9th of October, 1973 as an Assistant Director (BPS-16) while Mr. Khalid Tareen (respondent No, 4) was appointed directly by the competent Authority as a Deputy Director (BPS-17) on the 23rd of April, 1983.
4. On the petitioners' own showing "the petitioners were not hit by the appointment of the respondent No, 4 as Deputy Director in respect of their service prospects, therefore, the petitioners did not challenge the appointment of respondent No, 4 as Deputy Director".
5. However, when the post of the Vigilance Officer was upgraded from Grade-17' to Grade-18 vide Order dated the 23rd of January, 1990 (Annexure B) the petitioner felt aggrieved and chose to challenge the said order by way of this Constitutional petition brought in 1994.
6. Earlier on the 4th of February, 1990 the .Petitioner made a representation to the Managing Director of the Corporation (respondent No,1) against what he described as "against the out of turn promotion of Mr. Khalid Tareen" and prayed that "justice be done and the seniority of the undersigned be fixed prior to Mr. Khalid Tareen". (Annex-C).
' As a result, a meeting of the Standing Committee of the Corporation was held on the 6th of March, 1993 and recommended that for the purpose of seniority Mr. Khalid Tareen (respondent No, 4) be placed on ex-cadre with no claim whatsoever in the general cadre in respect of further promotion.
(Annex. D).
' In pursuance of this recommendation of the Committee, an order was passed by the Corporation on the 4th of August, 1993 that the post of Vigilance Officer shall be ex-cadre with effect from the 23rd of January, 1990 alongwith the incumbent, namely, Mr. Khalid Tareen (respondent No, 4) who would henceforth by "an ex-cadre Officer" with no claim whatsoever for promotion in the general cadre.
' Mr. Muhammad Sarwar Shad petitioner who is an Officer of the general cadre did not challenge this order either.
' Thus, neither the order of initial appointment of Mr. Khalid Tareen (respondent No, 4) dated the 2nd of April, 1983, nor the final order dated the 4th of August, 1993, is challenged by the petitioner.
' But only the order dated the 23rd of January, 1990, whereby the post of the Vigilance Officer was upgraded from Grade 17 to Grade 18, has been challenged.
7. The petitioner has no locus standi and further is not an aggrieved party within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, being an Officer of the general cadre he is imagining himself to be aggrieved with regard to an ex-cadre post. The petitioner is imagining without any basis that Mr. Khalid Tareen (respondent No, 4) will hinder the prospects of his promotion. This peculiar psyche of the petitioner remains a figment of his imagination but unfortunately does not make him an aggrieved party within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for a quo warranto the petitioner may not be an aggrieved party and tried to depend on technicalities with reference to the Service and Recruitment Rules of 1976. As a matter of fact there has been no violation of rules in question. Under Rule 2.4 of the Service and Recruitment Rules of 1976, the competent authority is the Chairman, Board of Members, Managing Director or any other officer to whom the powers are delegated by the Chairman, Board or the Managing Director. Furthermore, under section 15 of the Punjab Small Industries Corporation Act of 1973, the Board is the delegator and the Chairman of the Board is not divested of the powers of the competent authority by investing the same with the Managing Director.
9. A writ of quo warranto is not to issue as a matter of course or sheer technicalities on a doctrinnaire approach, as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Kamal Hussain and 7 others v. Muhammad Sirajul Islam and others reported in PLD 1969 Supreme Court 42.
10. It was on account of the abovementioned reasons that this Constitutional petition was dismissed by me vide order dated the 28th of November, 1995.