ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---Government of the Punjab through its Chief Secretary has filed this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 4-1-1995, allowing the appeal of the respondent civil servant with the direction that "his case shall again be placed before the Provincial Selection Board for their reconsideration irrespective of the totality of his record."
2. This case has a chequered history. The respondent brought his' grievance before the Service Tribunal thrice and the matter is coming before this Court second the. Facts forming the background of this petition, briefly stated, are that the respondent while posted as Assistant Commissioner, Sargodha in the year 1987 was stated to have worked with devotion and missionary zeal to implement "Jinnah Abadis Scheme" launched by the Government of Punjab which the then Chief Minister desired to be implemented on war footing. It appears that a target of 50,000 plots was allocated to Sargodha Division out of which 30,000 plots were given to Sargodha District and it was conveyed to the Commissioner "any distribution over and above the target would be commendable performance of concerned officers". Respondent managed the distribution/allotment of 24,000 plots in Sargodha Sub-Division alone out of the entire target of 30,000 plots of Sargodha District and 50,000 plots for the entire Division. Commissioner, Sargodha Division appreciating the respondent's devotion to duty and in recognition of the excellent job done by him recommended his accelerated promotion vide his D.O. Letter dated 27-8-1987 addressed to the Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab. Relevant extract from the said letter is reproduced hereunder:-- "3. In this very connection, Assistant Commissioner, Sargodha has done stupendous task by managing the distribution and implementation of 24,000 plots in Sargodha Sub-Division alone, out of the entire target of 30,000 plots of Sargodha District and 50,000 for the entire' Division. This achievement was possible only through continuous touring and full scale efforts though there were impediment such as selection of ' Abadi Site' particularly where sharp differences existed between the members of Allotment Committee.
4. According to the copy of the progress report available from, Toba Tek Singh District the total No. Of 7 Maria plots given out in Toba Tek Singh District of Faisalabad Division has been worked out to 39,024 whereas 33,038 plots have been distributed in Sargodha District alone. The individual target of 24,396 plots achieved by Assistant Commissioner, Sergodha thus counts the highest for one Sub-Division in the Province. The claim is supported by the record available. It would also be pertinent to mention that even the mutations in favour of Jinnah Abadis have been attested. The officer has accomplished this difficult and the limit work as a conscientious and dutiful officer.
5. In view of the above highly appreciated performance and also in pursuance of the pronouncement of the Chief Minister, Punjab appearing in the Pakistan Times, Lahore dated June 11, 1987 that the Government would encourage conscientious and dutiful officials by giving them rewards and rapid promotions, I would strongly recommend that this officer may please be considered for such rewards preferably rapid promotion as the Government may like to give to such officers. This would certainly encourage conscientious officers for future gear-up."
The Senior Member, Board of Revenue supported the recommendation of the Commissioner through a D.O. Letter addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab which is reproduced hereunder in extenso:-- "Raja Muhammad Iqbal, Assistant Commissioner, Sargodha has requested for out of turn promotion under the recently promulgated section 8-A of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The officer hbas based request on his past and present good performance of duties as under:-- .
(1) As Secretary, R.T.A., he resolved the difficult problems of transport between Rawalpindi and Islamabad. Commissioner, Rawalpindi, recommended him for accelerated promotion on 16th March, 1980. President of Pakistan was also pleased to appreciate his efforts.
(2) His work in connection with provision of the transport during the extraordinary session of Islamic Foreign Dignitaries Conference from 26th to 27th January, 1980, at Islamabad was formally appreciated by the Cabinet Division.
(3) Recently Commissioner, Sargodha Division, has recommended him for rapid promotion because of outstanding achievement of allotting 24,000 plots in Sargodha Sub-Division out of total target of 30,000 plots in Sargodha District."
3. The matter was placed before the Provincial Selection Board which in its meeting held on 29-1- 1989 did not approve the a forenoted recommendation. The respondent filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal to challenge the decision of the Selection Board. The Service Tribunal by its order dated 3-6-1990 remitted the case to the competent Authority for fresh decision. The Provincial Selection Board again refused accelerated promotion to the respondent on the ground that his case was not covered by section 8-A of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974; that his Reporting Officer never recommended him for accelerated promotion in his A.C.Rs,. For the last four years; that the performance of the respondent relied upon could be applicable to a number of officers with better service record; and that the recommendation was based on one field of activity while his entire service record carried only good grading which was not sufficient to grant him out of turn promotion. Respondent once more agitated his claim before the Service Tribunal in an appeal which was accepted by the learned Tribunal vide its judgment dated 22-4-1992 holding that the respondent was entitled to out of turn promotion to the next higher post/grade with effect from 29- 12--1990 i.e. The date when his case was rejected.
4. The order of the Service Tribunal was assailed by the Government before this Court, in an Appeal (C.A. 93/1993) which was accepted by this Court vide judgment dated 26th July, 1993 holding that the declaration made and the direction given by the Service Tribunal was not within the scope of its jurisdiction. "No specific direction for 'out of turn promotion' to the respondent, could have been issued much less from a specific date". The decision of the Selection Board, to, was held to be against the provisions of section 8-A of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 which, it was observed, did not envisage that "the candidate must have at his credit, at least four Annual Confidential Reports recommending him for accelerated promotion,. Or that when his case was to be considered for "out of turn promotion", the service record of others ought to have been consulted". It was further observed with reference to section 8-A that this provision clearly laid down that out of turn promotion is to be granted to a particular individual "on the basis of his extraordinary and outstanding performance of his duty and exhibiting high standard of intellectual, moral and financial integrity". This criterion alone, it was held, was to be kept in view, while considering the "out of turn promotion" case of the respondent but Provincial Selection Board did not advert to this aspect of the case, which resulted in miscarriage of justice. In this view of the matter, while setting aside the impugned order of the Service Tribunal, case was remitted by this Court to the Provincial Selection Board, "for fresh decision in accordance with law and the observations made above".
5. The Provincial Selection Board again declined to grant out of turn promotion to the respondent as in their view, the claim of the officer on the basis of allotment of plots while executing Jinnah Abadies Scheme in 1987 in Sargodha Sub-Division, resolving transport problem between Rawalpindi and Islamabad as Secretary, R.T.A., Rawalpindi and provision of transport during the extraordinary session of Islamic Foreign Ministers' Conference from 26th to 27th January, 1980 at Islamabad, did not satisfy the criteria required for out of turn promotion. The Board observed that these duties were performed by the Government functionaries in the normal discharge of their functions. It was also noticed by the Selection Board that "the criteria for out of turn promotion have to be taken in totality i.e. Exemplary intellectual, moral and financial integrity and high standard of honesty and extraordinary performance in discharging duty have to be considered altogether". The request of the respondent for out of turn promotion was thus rejected by the Provincial Selection Board in its meeting held on 8/10-11-1993. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent approached the Service Tribunal third the. The Service Tribunal vide its judgment dated 4-1-1995 allowed the appeal of the respondent and directed that his case be reconsidered by the Provincial Selection Board. The Tribunal took the view that the true purport of section 8-A as highlighted by this Court was not kept in mind by the Selection Board. It was observed by the Tribunal that the performance of a subordinate Officer could be best adjudged by his next senior who is charged with the duty of making such assessm ent objectively and if the Reporting Officer and the Countersigning Officer both had agreed that the officer really did some stupendous job and his performance was really exemplary or extraordinary calling for reward in the form of an accelerated promotion, "it may not be equitable to deny him fruition thereof on a view that the job might have been done by any given Officer". It was noted by the learned Tribunal that the job of the allotment/distribution of the plots was assigned to other officers also but none of them gave out such an enviable performance as that of the respondent and no one else was recommended for such promotion and it was only the respondent who was "singularly selected for such a high appreciation and certainly he appeared to be the best entitled to the reward".
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the caveator and have perused the documents/orders placed on the present record. It was not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent civil servant had managed the distribution of 24,000 plots in Sargodha Sub-Division alone while the target of the whole of district Sargodha was 30,000 plots. Learned counsel was also unable to controvert the finding of the Service Tribunal that the job assigned to the respondent officer was also given to other officers but none of them gave such enviable performance' as was rendered by the respondent and that no other officer was recommended for out-of-turn promotion. Learned counsel, however, sought to contend that the job done by the respondent in managing the distribution of plots was in the discharge of his normal duties for which he could not legitimately claim any reward like out-of-turn promotion. It was further contended that the performance of the respondent in only one field of activity namely the distribution/allotment of the plots in implementation of a particular scheme was not good enough to qualify him for out-of-turn promotion. Precise contention of the learned counsel was that the mere fact that the respondent performed what was described by his superiors as 'stupendous task' did not satisfy the criteria laid down in section 8-A of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 the grant of out-of-turn promotion to a civil servant viz. That he provenly exhibits exemplary intellectual, moral and financial integrity and high standard of honesty and gives extraordinary performance in the discharge of his duties. We do not consider it advisable to express any considered opinion on this aspect of the matter as the case of the respondent stands remitted to the Provincial Selection Board for reconsideration and we are satisfied that the matter needs reconsideration by the Selection Board. On examining the impugned decision of the Selection Board, we find that the Selection Board did not consider the case of the respondent in its proper perspective and rejected his claim on the short but untenable ground that various duties performed by him were such as are performed by Government functionaries in the normal discharge of their functions. It is true that the job of executing the 'Jinnah Abadis Scheme' was assigned to the- respondent and other officers in ordinary course of their duties but then section 8-A provides for the grant of out-of-turn promotion to a civil servant who gives extraordinary performance in the discharge of his duties and not for something done beyond the scope of his duties. That being so, the Selection Board ought to have adjudged the quality and standard of the respondent's performance on merits keeping in view the recommendation made by the Commissioner and the requirement of section 8-A but this was not done. We would also like to observe that the Selection Board was in error in referring to the respondent's performance as Secretary, R.T.A--- Rawalpindi in the year 1980 which performance though commendable was, strictly speaking, not: quite relevant for the purpose of out-of-turn promotion envisaged under section 8-A. Needless to observe that section 8-A was enacted to acknowledge and reward extraordinary performance of a civil servant in a particular situation. That being so the performance/achievement of the respondent in relation to the implementation of "Jinnah Abadis Scheme' alone should have been considered as his case for out-of-turn promotion was recommended by the Commissioner on that basis. It may be worthwhile to point out that the Commissioner in his letter addressed to the Senior Member, Board of Revenue recommending accelerated promotion for the respondent appreciated his devotion to duty and missionary zeal with which he implemented the 'Jinnah Abadis Scheme' and pointed out that the target of 24394 plots achieved by the respondent was the highest for a sub-division in the Province. In the view of the Commissioner, "The Officer has accomplished this difficult and title limit work as a conscientious and dutiful officer". If these observations/comments were true and correct and incidentally the Selection Board has not questioned their veracity the same should have been given due consideration when deciding the case of the respondent for out-of---turn promotion.
In the aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal directing the Provincial Selection Board to re-consider the respondent's case for out-of-turn promotion does not warrant any interference by this Court. This petition is accordingly dismissed.