1. MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-The appellant, a qualified Inspector of Post Offices, appealed before the Departmental Promotion Com--mittee on 17/18-9-1971, obtained 29 marks and was expecting to be selected for promotion to one of the posts of Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices. The promotion to the cadre is made of the basis of merit and the appellant's position being the fifth among the "selected candidates" he should have been appointed/promoted to one of the five posts but instead he was approved for promotion to the higher selection grade which was less beneficial and ---unattractive--- and placed at S. No. 3 vide orders dated 5-10-1971 of the Postmaster General Northern Circles Peshawar.
2. While working in the higher selection grade from 16-2-1971, the D. G. vide Iris orders dated 8-7-72 cancelled his selection in the post on the ground that he was rot recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee and his two seniors who secured 19 and 27 marks had been ignored for Promotion for the reason that they were not willing' to move out of their stations of posting. No such declaration could be produced. On the contrary the D. G. had been given to understand that the-officials had indicated their willingness to work anywhere in the circle. The Postmaster-- General v as therefore required to order, a fresh meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee for making selections to the cadre of Assistant Superintendent and Higher Selection Grade.
3. The Departmental Promotion Committee in their meeting held on 8.6-1973 recommended the appellant -for promotion- to Higher Selection Grade and placed him at No. 6.
4. The appellant has agitate# before us the decision taken in pursuance of recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee and claimed the post of Assistant Superintendent on the basis of marks obtained on the canter Selection made on 17118-94L 'He -Ass further contested the competence of the Director General to interfere in the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee and prayed that order Na. 52-631'11 dated 8-7-1972 be set aside and the proceedings of the D. P. C. meeting held on 17/18-9-71 upheld.
5. It is admitted that the appellant's position on the seniority list is 11th and the five IPOS having been interviewed and found fit by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 17th/18th-9-71, and approved for promotion to five posts of Assistant Superintendent were senior to the appellant. The appellant's name is not indicated among these five, although the Departmental Promotion Committee examined the cases of 11 Inspectors, including the appellant for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Superintendent/Higher Selection Grade (General line).
6. The Committee further considered two other Officials Nos. 2 and 4 on the seniority list as fit for promotion to the cadre of Higher Selection Grade only. The petitioner's name does not find mention even in this list. The minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting in this behalf refer.
7. Although only two officials were considered fit for promotion to Higher Selection Grade the Postmaster-General in his Memo No. Staff/N-1100. DPC/71 dated 5-10-1971 finally approved for promotion to Higher Selection Grade (General line) three officials, the third being the appellant.
8. It would therefore be necessary to know, how the appellant's name came to be included. A reference to the minutes of the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee would indicate that when the "minutes" were put up to the Postmaster-General, he minute as under: "Approved except that Messrs Muhammad Zakir Ali and Sharafat Ali Khan seek promotion in Rawalpindi only and Muhammad Jamil Khan in Peshawar and we have vacancies in Higher Selection Grade at Bannu/Mardan and D. I. Khan and Kohat Postmaster is on extension and as such Mr. Hidayatullah Khan be considered for Higher Selection Grade to be provided on likely vacancies on administrative grounds. He has secured 19 marks". (Sd.) Dt. 25-9.
9. Dy. P. M. G.-With reference to the note of the P. M. G., the Dy. P.M.G. submitted "In,view of observations made be P. M. G. it would not serve any useful purpose to recommend those who do not like to move out of their stations of duty.
10. However, Mr. Hidayatullah who is willing for posting any where and has secured reasonably good position in order of merit may be con--sidered by Post Master General for selection. (Sd.) Dt. 27-9.
11. P. M. G.-The P. M. G. wrote "approved" and marked the file to Dy. P. M. G.
12. (Sd.) 27-971"
13. It is evident that the appellant was not included in either of the two lists of officials recommended by the Department Promotion Committee. His name came to be included for promotion to Higher Selection Grade in "likely vacancies on administrative grounds." This was a matter of expediency or convenience. No right was created thereby. The noting on the depart--mental file between the P. M.
14. G. and the Dy. P. M. G. cannot be regarded as correspondence between the P. M. G. and the Chairman of the D. P. C. even though the Dy. P. M. G. may have been the Chairman; much less as the proceedings of the D. P. C.
15. The D. G. in his letter No. 2-63/71 dated 8-7-1972, pointed out the unwanted assumptions in bye- passing the senior selected of the D. P. C-1 and irregularities committed in the matter of promotions and requested for--- a fresh meeting of the D. P. C. on the basis of rules.
16. This, in our view cannot be regarded as an interference in the proceed--ings of the D. P. C. A reference to the relevant extract para 272(g) from the P & T Manual would indicate that promotion to the posts of Assistant Superintendent is to be made by selection on the recommended on of the Departmental Promotion committee inter alia in the manner indicated below.
17. "The posts of Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices shall be filled by promotion from the cadre of Inspectors."
18. Para. 272-B of the P & T Manual has reference to promotion to Higher Selection Grade on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness from officials in the Lower Selection Grade and Inspectors as indicated therein.
19. It would be seen that there is no reference to "marks obtained" on the basis of which the appellant has claimed appointment or seniority in the cadre of Assistant Superintendent. On the other hand, his name does not find place on either of the two lists of the recommendation of the D. B. L.
20. Neither on the basis of the rules nor on the basis of the recommendations of the D. P. C. has the appellant been able to establish his claim for promotion. Inclusion of his name for promotion to Higher Selection Grade does not confer any title or claim to seniority in preference to his otherwise seniors. His position on the seniority list among Inspectors remains unaffected throughout.