' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---Petitioners in the captioned petitions feel aggrieved of an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 21-5-1995 whereby service appeal No, 515 of 1990 filed by Mrs. Munawar Bashir respondent No, 7 was allowed and she was declared entitled to be granted pro forma promotion to the post of Audiologist (BS-17) from 23-7-1987 and as also the consequential seniority.
2. Facts giving rise to these petitioners, briefly stated, are that Mrs. Munawar Bashir Audiologist (BS- 17) in the Government Middle High School for Deaf and Defective Hearing Girls, Chauburji, Lahore claimed that she was entitled to be promoted as Audiologist (BS-17) from 1987 after completing three years' experience as senior Oral Mistress. Her case for promotion was placed before the D.P.C.
On 23-7-1987 but it was deferred by it for "completion of certain deficiencies". She was, however, later promoted as Audiologist (BS-17) on 22-6-1988. She represented for the grant of pro forma promotion with effect from 23-7-1987, the data when the vacancy had become available. It appears that in the meanwhile, Ch. Muhammad Nazir and Mrs. Samina Nasir respondents were directly appointed as Headmaster/Headmistress/Audiologist (BS-17) as initial recruits and they joined the service on 27-3-1988 and 23-4-1988 respectively with the result that Mrs. Munawar Bashir respondent was shown junior to them in the seniority list dated 1-4-1990 to which she had objected but her objections were turned down on 21-4-1990. She made a representation to the next higher authority on 20-6-1990 and after the expiry of the period of 90 days preferred an appeal before the Service Tribunal claiming that she was entitled to get promotion with effect from 23-7- 1987 when her case was deferred for the so-called "non-completion and deficiencies". It was urged by her before the Service Tribunal that the delay was not due to any reason attributed to her. On the contrary, it was due to in-efficiency of the staff concerned which failed to make her case free from such deficiencies. She also made a grievance that Mst. Shakeela Yasoob, Mrs. Razia Rana and Mrs. Saeeda Habib Farooqi, petitioners herein though promoted with her by the same Notification dated 22-6-1988 .Were junior to her inasmuch as they joined the posts much later, after their return from deputation. Appeal of respondent No,7 was contested by the petitioners on the ground, inter alia, that she belonged to general cadre as S.S.T. And was transferred to the Special Education Wing on 8-4-1984 due to the influence of her husband who was an officer of District Management Group and that she kept her lien alive in her parent department. She could not, therefore, claim seniority and promotion in the Special Education Wing.
3. The learned Tribunal observed that it was undisputed that respondent No, 7 was considered for promotion to the post of Audiologist (135-17) by D.P.C. In its meeting held on 23-7-1987 and her case was deferred because of certain deficiencies and proceeded to hold that "but for this reason she would have been promoted from 23-7-1987 against the post which clearly meant for promotion quota and was then available to be filled on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness by the next eligible officer. The appellant was found entitled to it though she was granted promotion from a later date namely 15-5-1988 because of deferment of this case in the previous meeting of the D.P.C. Since this delay was not caused by her, she could not be held responsible for it, nor could be punishable by deferring her promotion. It was held in 1985 SCM R 1158 that a promotee was entitled to promotion from the date when the post might have fallen vacant. On this principle, the appellant seemed to have a right to have been promoted from 23-7-1987." The learned Tribunal repelled the objections of the respondents and held that in the absence of any order sending respondent No,7 on deputation to the Special Education Wing, "her plea of having been appointed here through transfer under rule 11 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 would be assumed to be correct." It was observed by the Tribunal that respondent No, 7 joined the Special Education Department through transfer in 1984. None objected to it at that time and no objection was raised even when she was promoted on 15-5-1988 through a Notification. At least, no one prefeired an appeal before the Service Tribunal. This conduct of the petitioners, according to the learned Tribunal, "Would obviously preclude them from objecting to her getting the promotion ante-dated." The learned Tribunal also repelled the objection raised on behalf of some of the petitioners herein that the name of Mrs. Munawar Bashir respondent No, 7 was struck off as SST due to her long absence from duty and as such she could not be appointed through transfer. This plea, the Tribunal held, was not substantiated by any documentary evidence. With these findings/observations, the learned Tribunal accepted the appeal of respondent No, 7 and declared her entitled to be granted pro forma promotion as Audiologist (BS-17) from 23-7-1987 and also consequential seniority.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner's. He has pointed out that Mrs. Shakeela Yasoob, petitioner in C.P. 998-L of 1995 has died and, therefore, her petition has become infructuous. Civil Petition No,998-L of 1995 is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. In other petitions, learned counsel raised the same objections against the appointment by transfer of respondent No, 7 and her entitlement to promotion as were raised in the appeal before the Service Tribunal. He was, however, unable to controvert the findings recorded by the Service Tribunal that respondent No,7 was transferred to the Special Education Wing in the year 1984. No objection was then taken by any of the present petitioners to the appointment of respondent No,
7. Respondent was later promoted as Audiologist (BS-17) in 1988 and even then no objection was raised by the petitioners and as rightly observed by the Service Tribunal, they did not agitate the grievance in an appeal before the Service Tribunal. That being so, it has been rightly held by the learned Tribunal that the petitioners are precluded by their own conduct from raising any objection at this belated stage to the respondent's claim for pro forma promotion. It has not been denied that the case of the respondent was placed before the D.P.C. On 23-7-1987 and was deferred due to certain deficiencies but she was later promoted on 15-5-1988. That being so, she was entitled to ask for promotion with effect from the date the post became available and/or the date when her case was deferred by D.P.C. The judgment of the Service Tribunal, in our view, is quite, just and fair and does not suffer from any illegality. It does not, therefore, call for any interference by this Court. All the petitions are accordingly dismissed.