1. ' RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.---The respondent, Abdur Rauf was an employee of C & W Department. He was transferred to the Education Department to be appointed against the post of Head of Department (Civil) in the Government Polytechnic Institute, Quetta in B.P.S.-18. In 1986, he was transferred and posted as Chief of Section in the Planning and Development Department in his own pay and scale. This post is, however, meant for Grade-19 civil servants. An application was given by the respondent for grant of pay of higher post as was envisaged under section 17 of the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974 read with standing instructions issued in 1992. On the basis of his transfer to the new department, he was treated as a deputationist and as such no formal order was issued for his absorption in the Planning and Development Department. In such a situation, a representation was moved by him before the Additional Chief Secretary, Planning and Development Department for his confirmation in the said department with effect from 1st of July 1986 as Chief of section B.P.S.-19. The case was forwarded to the Government but no decision could be taken because relaxation of rules was involved. Besides the above, the post of Chief of Section could only be filled in by initial recruitment through Public service Commission. On 14-1-1995, the respondent sent a representation to the Planning and Development Department for his appointment in B.P.S.-19 on permanent basis. The Services and General Administration Department clarified that the respondent was an officer of Grade-18 and he could, however, continue with the new assignment vide letter dated 4-5-1995. Against the respondent before the Balochistan Service Tribunal for the redress of his grievance. On 24th October, 1997, the tribunal accepted the appeal and issued direction to the concerned department to implement the order which was passed by the Chief Minister, Balochistan on 24th of May, 1991 for confirmation of the respondent against the post of Chief of Section in Grade-19. The order of the Chief Minister has been complied with by issuing the requisite notification. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the impugned decision.
2. The learned counsel argued that the petitioners were a necessary party to the proceedings having been initiated, through appeal which was filed by the respondent, Abdur Rauf Kasi. They have a vested right of hearing being the employees, of the Planning and Development Department.
2. They have, however, been condemned unheard which is against the principles of natural justice.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. The record was also perused by us. We have not been persuaded to interfere in the well-reasoned judgment of the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal observed: ' The appellant who is a qualified and experienced Civil Engineer with a Post-graduation degree from Leeds University (U.K.) had no knowledge whether P & D Department had observed official formalities or not while accepting the offer to joining P & D Department as Chief of Section. He has completed more than 10 years tenure which includes probationary period for serving in P & D Department and the allied projects, hence it would be unfair at this belated stage to make him suffer by creating adjustment problems for him for which he is not at fault. Apart from personal liking and disliking, it is a fact that services of a qualified civil engineer are always required in the P & D Department for which a post in B-19 remains occupied by a deputationist from C & W department. Presently when Provincial Government has totally banned deputation of public servants for serving in other than their parent Departments, it is high time for the P & D department to accord an impartial consideration to the regular absorption of the appellant as Chief of Section or S.E. In the said Department. Since the post of Chief of Section carries pay scale (B-19) and the appellant presently is drawing his pay in the said scale as such he has a justified case for his regular absorption as Chief of section (B-19) from the date of his taken-over i.e, 26-6-1986 for which ex-post facto approval and necessary relaxation has already been granted by the Chief Minister on the recommendations of the then A.C.S.(Dev.) and the Chief Secretary Balochistan.
3. There is no hitch for this Tribunal to ask for implementation of an order passed by the competent Authority for implementation.
4. ' In view of the above, we accept the appeal and direct the official respondents to notify the orders passed by the then Chief Minister Balochistan dated 27-9-1994 on the summary initiated by the P & D Department according ex post facto approval and specific relaxation to the appointment of the appellant as Chief of Section (B-19) from the date of his joining in the P & D Department i.e, 1-7-1986 with no order as to costs."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to dislodge the reasons having been given by the Tribunal in support of the case of the respondent. The respondent has been held to be an experienced civil engineer with Post-graduation degree having been obtained by him from Leeds University (U.K.). He has completed 10 years tenure for becoming eligible for promotion in Grade-19.
6. This educational qualification is not possessed by the petitioners. The higher qualification having been obtained by the respondent has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
7. Their only argument is that the respondent was a deputationist and as such, he could not be given promotion in this department. There is no force in their argument inasmuch as considering all the pros and cons of the case, the Planning and Development Department of the Government of Balochistan prepared a summary for his promotion which was accepted by the Chief Minister, Balochistan vide his order, dated 27th of September, 1994 on the ground that the respondent had a higher qualification which eminently made him eligible for his appointment as Chief of Section.
8. None of the petitioners had such a qualification and as such, they could not compete with him. The impugned judgment has been passed in accordance with law. No question of public importance is involved in this case. There is, therefore, no force in this petition which is dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused.