' ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J.---1. Granted subject to all just exceptions.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:- "It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold and direct that the petitioner is entitled for the promotion to the post of Assistant Port Fire Officer in view of his selection on merit by the Selection Committee (constituted under section 17(3) of the KPT Act) and also to hold and declare that promotion given to respondent No, 3 is illegal, mala fide, unlawful, without lawful authority."
' The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No, 2 had to fill the post of Assistant Port Fire Officer and this post was to be filled by way of promotion on the basis of seniority-cum- fitness. The contention of the petitioner is that he is better qualified and, therefore, is entitled to promotion over and above the respondent No, 3 who has been granted such promotion. The facts as disclosed in the petition are that the respondent No, 3 was appointed against the post from which he has been promoted on 30-9-1971 while the present petitioner is his Junior by nine years.
The petitioner has also placed on record a statement showing the particulars of the two candidates wherein also it is shown that the post is to be filled in on the basis of merit and that the respondent No, 3 ranks senior to the petitioner. In these circumstances, it can hardly be said that the petitioner has not been considered for promotion. The counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the respondents have violated the provision of the regulations by not allowing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. He has further submitted that in such circumstances where the rules have been violated, the petitioner can maintain the present Constitutional petition.
Reliance is placed on the case of Shahid Iqbal v. Government of Pakistan (1995 SCM R 660).
' It may be observed that a perusal of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court will show that their Lordships have also held that no employee has vested right in promotion. Their lordships have further observed that there is an exception where regulations and policy framed regulating the appointment and promotion has not been complied with. In the present case, this judgment would not be relevant inasmuch as the record shows that the petitioner has been duly considered by the Selection Board on his merits and then the senior most person has been promoted. In the case of Mutaqi Hassan v. Province of Sindh (PLD 1978 Karachi 703) it has been held that promotion to higher post is not a vested right but all the same, it is the right of incumbent to be considered for promotion. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner has been considered for promotion but then the senior most person has been granted such promotion.
' Similarly in the case of A. Iqbal Qaudri v. Federation of Pakistan in C. P. No, D-1545/1994 a Division Bench of author) it has been held that the superior Courts will not substitute themselves for the Selection Board or Selection Committee. Selection of a person against the particular post is discretion of the concerned Selection Board or Committee. All that is to be seen is if such discretion is exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. In such circumstances, we are of the view that this petition is not maintainable, which is accordingly dismissed in limine.
3. Dismissed as infructuous.