ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---Petitioners Muhammad Anwar Rahi and Muhammad Aslam have fled this petition to seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore dated 3-5-1995 whereby service appeal of Muhammad Afzal Khan, respondent No. l has been allowed and the case remanded to the Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of Punjab for passing appropriate orders on the recommendation of the D.P.C.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this petition, briefly, are that the petitioners and respondents Nos.1, 4 and 5 were all Agriculture Assistants and their next promotion was to the post of Extra Assistant Director, Agriculture (EADA). Under the rules, promotion to the post of EADA was to be made on the basis of selection irrespective of seniority subject, however, to the condition that only the Agriculture Assistants having three years' experience in economics and marketing were eligible for promotion.
It appears that seven posts of EADA in promotion quota fell vacant and a reference was accordingly made to the Punjab Public Service Commission for promotion of seven Agriculture Assistants. Name of Muhammad Afzal Khan respondent was mentioned at serial No.6 of the list of eligible candidates, but only four Agriculture Assistants were selected presumably for the reasons that other three vacancies were withdrawn by the Department for reasons best known to it with the result that respondent No. l was not selected. It may be stated that when the reference was made to the Public Service Commission on 3-4-1972, Muhammad Anwar Rahi petitioner had not yet had the requisite experience of three years in economics and marketing and, therefore, his name was not included in the list of eligible candidates sent to the Public Service Commission although he was senior to respondent No. 1. Be that as it may, he was subsequently promoted as EADA against a vacant post on 28-11-1972 but then respondent No. l was not considered who was promoted later in the year 1975 and that, to, temporarily and was given regular promotion on 5-5-1977. He agitated for pro forma promotion and it appears that on his representation, the Departmental. Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 17-11-1980, recommended the grant of pro forma promotion to him wins effect from 28-11-1972, i.e., the date on which Muhammad Anwar Rahi petitioner was promoted, but this recommendation was not approved by SGA&I Department, Government of Punjab vide their letter dated 23-6-1990. He then, after making representation to the Governor and receiving no response thereto within a period of 90 days, preferred an appeal before Punjab Service Tribunal against refusal of the Authorities to grant him pro forma promotion and to challenge the further promotion of Muhammad Anwar Rahias Deputy Director Agriculture in BPS-18.
3. Learned Service Tribunal after hearing the parties held that although respondent No. l had three years' experience in economics and marketing on 3-4-1972 and was thus eligible for promotion, he had no vested right to be selected on the mere ground of eligibility as the rule of promotion was based on selection. It was further held by the Service Tribunal that to keep the post vacant till the senior ineligible, viz. Muhammad Anwar Rahi petitioner had completed another three months to become eligible could not be assailed on the ground of mala fides. The Tribunal, however, accepted the contention of respondent No. l that in view of rule 6 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, SGA&I Department had no power to approve or disapprove the recommendations of D.P.C. And it was the Secretary of the Department alone, who could have passed orders without referring the matter to SGA&I Department and held that the order of SGA&I Department dated 23-6-1990 refusing to approve the recommendation of D.P.C. For grant of pro forma promotion to respondent No.1 was of no legal effect, which was accordingly set aside with the direction, "the recommendations of the D.P.C. Will be acted upon by the Secretary as envisaged by rules 5 and 6 (ibid)."
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at considerable length. It is not denied that the D.P.C. Had recommended the grant of pro forma promotion to respondent No.1 with effect from 28-11-1972, i.e., the date on which petitioner No.1 was promoted as EADA and that this recommendation was referred to SGA&I Department for approval which it refused to grant. This recommendation was, no doubt, made on 17-11-1980, but by the the it came before SGA&I Department and it declined to accord approval thereto on 23-6-1990, Rule 6 of Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 stood amended and the amended rules, inter alia, laid down, "notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any Service Rules," Secretary of the Department shall be competent to make appointment to the posts in BPS- 16 and 17 (except BPS-16 posts of Superintendent in non-Secretariat Offices). Relying on the amended Rule 6, learned Tribunal has held, and rightly so, that on 23-6-1990, SGA&I Department had no power to approve or disapprove the recommendation of the D.P.C. And it was only the Secretary of the Agriculture Department, who was competent to consider the recommendation of the D.P.C. The case was, therefore, rightly remitted to the Secretary for passing appropriate orders on the recommendation of the D .P.C.
5. Upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal does not merit any interference by this Court. Leave sought is accordingly refused and the petition dismissed revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.