MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN JEHANGIRI, J.-- Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, dated 18-4-1996.
2. Facts of the case, briefly, are that Zar Gul Khan, respondent, who was employed as Assistant Sericulture Development Officer (B-11) in Sericulture Wing of N.-W.F.P. Forest Department, filed appeal before the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal against the order dated 30-5-1995 of respondent No.2 whereby petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were promoted as Sericulture Development Officers (B-16) and respondent No. 1 claiming to be senior to them was not promoted. The appeal was obviously resisted by both the petitioners and the official respondents, inter alia, on the ground that the N.- W.F.P. Service Tribunal was devoid of jurisdiction in view of the bar of section 4 of the N.-W.F.P.
Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
3. The Service Tribunal, however, without adverting to the objection of lack of jurisdiction, accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 30-5-1995 "alongwith the minutes of the D.P.C. And remanded the case to the respondent/administrative department to consider the case of the appellant alongwith respondents Nos. 3 and 4 by the D.P.C. Afresh for recording their recommendations as laid down and stated above".
4. Qazi Muhammad Anwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that the learned Members of the Service Tribunal have allowed the relief in exercise of their appellate jurisdiction which could not at all be granted to respondent No. 1, in that, the subject --matter was clearly barred under section 4(b) of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974 read with section 22 of the Civil Servants Act. In support of this proposition, reliance was placed on to cases of this Court:
(i) Government of Punjab v. Muhammad Awais Shahid (1991 SCM R 696) and (ii) Mien Abdul Malik v.
Dr. Sabir Zameer Siddiqui and 4 others (1991 SCM R 1129).
5. From the perusal of the impugned order, we find that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners has prima facie some merit. We would, therefore, grant leave to appeal to consider the following questions of law of public importance, namely,--
(a) whether, the relief allowed by the Tribunal in its appellate jurisdiction to respondent No. 1 could at all be granted? And
(b) whether the subject-matter was not clearly barred under section 4(b) of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974 read with section 22 of the Civil Servants Act?
6. Status quo already granted shall continue till the decision of the appeal.