' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 20-5-1997, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal; Islamabad, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, in Civil Appeal No, 55(L) of 1997.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that Allah Rakha petitioner, while working as Fitter in Grade-1 in the office of XEN T.R. (D) Workshop Shalimar, Lahore, was promoted as Assistant Foreman and posted in the same capacity in the office of XEN T.R. (D), Nowshera against a vacant post vide coder dated 17-6-1996. The promotion of the petitioner was provisional and on temporary basis until further orders. The petitioner failed to join the post within 15 days in accordance with the condition laid down in the promotion order, WAPDA, therefore, passed another order on 22-9-1996, whereby the petitioner was attached with XEN T.R. (D) Workshop Shalimar, Lahore and his pay was to be charged against his original post of Assistant Foreman T.R. (D) Workshop, Nowshera till further orders. Finally, by order dated 26-9-1996, Rehmat Khan respondent No, 5 herein was posted as Assistant Foreman T.R. (D) Workshop, Nowshera and the petitioner was allowed to continue in place of respondent No, 5 in the T.R. (D) Workshop Shalimar, Lahore. Respondent No, 5 being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order approached the Tribunal, which after thorough scrutiny of the material on record, recorded a finding of fact that the order of transfer dated 26-9-1996 was passed mala fide, with a view to accommodate the petitioner out of way and not in the exigencies of service.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the material available on record. Suffice it to say that the controversy raised herein is concluded by a finding of fact that the order of transfer dated 26-9-1996 was mala fide. Clearly, a finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal upon proper consideration of relevant material on record cannot be interfered with by this Court, in the absence of anything on the record to show any misreading or disregard of any material evidence on record. Here learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show any error in the appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal. No question of law of public importance is involved in this case. The impugned order is unexceptionable.
' In the result, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed.