' ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---The facts of this appeal are that the appellant Mr. Sajjad Ahmed Javed Bhatti qualified C.S.S. Examination in the year 1969 and was appointed in Foreign Service but was transferred to Police Service in the year 1970. In the year 1982, some of his batch- mates were promoted but the case of the appellant was not considered and finally the Central Selection Board in the year 1985 cleared him for promotion and he was promoted to the post of D.I.-G. Police. His case was that since his juniors were earlier promoted, therefore, he may be given seniority retrospectively from 1982. His representation was rejected on 27-4-1986 to which he filed Appeal No, 132(L)/86. The same was dismissed and it was clearly mentioned that after perusing the record, the Tribunal was convinced that interpretation of the term 'Not cleared for promotion' by the Establishment Division in all such cases has been read universally as 'supersession'. This appeal was decided on 28-11-1989. The appellant challenged the judgment of the Tribunal in the Supreme Court. Leave to Appeal was granted and finally the Supreme Court after hearing the parties dismissed his Civil Appeal No, 63 of 1991 by judgment dated 1-12-1992 with the clear observations that while considering the promotion of the appellant to Grade-19, the terminology used by the C.S.B. Not cleared for promotion" definitely carried the adverse impression that he was not approved for promotion and, therefore, the inference drawn by the Tribunal that the .Appellant was superseded in the meeting of the C.S.B. Held on 11-12-1983 was not totally unfounded. The case was not found fit for interference and the appeal was dismissed. The appellant filed Civil Review Petition No, 14 of 1993 in Civil Appeal No, 63 of 1991 in the Supreme Court but the same too was dismissed with the following order, dated 11-10-1993: . Heard. No justification to review this Court judgment dated 1-12-1992 has been made out.
' Dismissed."
' The appellant has again approached the Tribunal by way of this appeal having been filed on 30- 10-1995.
2. The appellant was heard at length at the preliminary stage. It is argued that after the decision of the Courts, he found that proper quantification was not made and it was a case of fraud, therefore, the earlier judgment of the Tribunal in Appeal No, 132(L)/86 be set aside under section 12(2) of C.P.C. He has relied on the case reported in 1992 SCM R 1908.
3. The grievance in the first round of litigation before this Tribunal was that since his case was not considered in 1982 and 1983, when his juniors were promoted, he was entitled to regain his seniority from 1982 and not from 1985. This question had been examined by this Tribunal in earlier Appeal No,132(L)/86 but the same was dismissed. He challenged the decision of the Tribunal in the Supreme Court where the appellant also could not succeed and finally his Civil Appeal as well as Review Petition both were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He has again come before this Tribunal for the same cause of action with the prayer to recall the order dated 28-11-1989 passed by the Tribunal in earlier Appeal No, 132(L)/86 and he may be given pro forma promotion as prayed. In the first instance, there is no fresh order which could give the appellant fresh cause of action but the cause is the same which had been the subject-matter of earlier appeal before this Tribunal which reached to finality on dismissal of his appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The question before us is whether under section 12(2) of C.P.C. We can reopen or review the case after the final adjudication of the matter up to the level of the Supreme Court. The contention of the appellant is that in the light of the reported case 1992 SCM R 1908, the Tribunal can review its order or judgment if fraud is committed. The appellant has not been able to produce any record as to substantiate his averments that any fraud was committed by the Government which led the Tribunal in dismissing his appeal, when the Tribunal, in clear terms, after examining the record had recorded a finding that the appellant was superseded and as such he is not entitled to reckon seniority alongwith his batch-mates due to his supersession. It is a settled law that the Tribunal has no power to review its judgment in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1986 SCM R 808 and 1991 SCM R 1748. Similar question had been the subject-matter of adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zafar Hussain v. Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Law and Justice (1993 SCM R 2340) and it was decided that since the present matter of controversy had already been decided by the Tribunal as well as up to the level of the Supreme Court, such matter could not be reopened. Moreover, there is no original or appellate order, after the decision of the Supreme Court and the appellant wants Tribunal to set aside the order which was subject-matter of Appeal No, 132(L)/86. We fear we cannot reopen same case which had already been decided up to the level of Supreme Court. In case the appellant had any point for fraud, he could have urged in appeal or in the Review before the Supreme Court which he had not done.
4. For the above-stated reasons, the appeal is dismissed in limine.