MALIK HAMID SAEED, J.---By this petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner had prayed for directing the respondents to give him his due seniority from the date it became due.
2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Tehsildar directly through a Notification dated 5-8-1965 and regular seniority list was published by the Board of Revenue, N. - W.F.P. In the year 1978. He was promoted in due course of the as E: A.C. On 4-7-1979 and in the seniority list of P.C.S. (EB) of N.-W.F.P. Prepared during 1982, his name was missing. After un- successive representations to the quarters concerned, he filed an appeal before the N.-W.F.P.
Services Tribunal for redress of his grievances but in vain as his services by that the as E.A.C. Were not regularised. Unsuccessful to get his services regularised through making representation to Government, he again filed an appeal before the Tribunal (ibid) but that to was dismissed for want of jurisdiction in ordering the Government to give promotion to him from a particular date.
Thereafter, he filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan where the Provincial Selection Board was directed to dispose of his case within to months. There his case was not considered, due to his indifferent service record, for regular appointment and hence this Constitutional petition on the ground that his temporary promotion to the post of E.A.C. Should not be treated on ' ad hoc' and be declared as regular posting from the date he has been promoted to the post of Extra Assistant Commissioner.
3. Mr. Gohar Zaman Khan Kundi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, vehemently stressed that the order of Provincial Selection Board; refusing regularisation of his client in E.A.C.
(E.B.) cadre due to his indifferent service record, despite the fact that on his recruitment as a Tehsildar directly his promotion to the post of EAC was temporary and not on ad hoc basis, is unwarranted. His contention was that the objection of the respondents that the petitioner's case could be considered only after getting his services regularised is absolutely incorrect, because he was holding the regular post of Tehsildar and promoted there from in accordance with the rules by a competent Authority and withholding promotion to him is against all the cannons of justice and in violation of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
4. We are, however, not persuaded with the arguments advanced by the petitioner's counsel and reproduce Article 212 of the Constitution which read as under: -- Article 212. --Administrative Courts And Tribunals. ---(I) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, the appropriate Legislature may by at (provide for the establishment of) one or more Administrative Courts or Tribunals to exercise exclusive jurisdiction in respect of---
(a) matters relating to the terms and conditions of persons who are or have been in the service of Pakistan, including disciplinary matters;
(b) matters relating to claims arising from tortious acts of Government, or any person in the service of Pakistan, or of any local or other authority empowered by law to levy any tax or cess and any servant of such authority acting in the discharge of his duties as such servant; or
(c) matters relating to the acquisition, administration and disposal of any property which is deemed to be enemy property under any law;
(2) ... .... .. ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... .. ... ...-... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
(3) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Being satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law of public importance, grants leave to appeal."
5. From perusal of aforementioned Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, we are clear in our mind that the jurisdiction of all Courts including this Court has been taken away in matters in respect to which Service Tribunal has been empowered. Sub-clause (2) of Article 212 ibid also excludes the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 thereof.
6. We, therefore, hold that the impugned order concerns with the terms and conditions of service of the petitioner, which is not open to challenge under Article 199 of the Constitution but could be challenged under Article 212 before the Service Tribunal.
7. In consequence, we are left with no option but to dismiss this writ petition for want of jurisdiction.
A.A./2107/P