' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The above appeal with the leave of this Court is directed against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 25-1-1995 dismissing service appeal filed by the appellant, both on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellant was selected by the Departmental Selection Board of respondent No,4 (Heavy Industries, Taxila) as Assistant Administrative Officer (B-17). The Selection Board, at the time of formulating its recommendations, keeping in view qualification and experience of the appellant, recommended grant of 5 premature increments to the appellant.
However, the appointment letter issued to the appellant on 1-1-1991 did not allow him any advance increment. The appellant made a representation to the Secretary Establishment on 24-12-1991 for grant of 5 advance increments as recommended by the Selection Board. The Establishment Division, however, rejected his request. The appellant preferred departmental appeal on 22-6-1993 which too was rejected on 15-9-1994 and thereafter, he preferred appeal before the learned Federal Service Tribunal which met with no different fate.
3. Leave was granted in the above case to examine, whether the observation of the learned Tribunal that the appeal was hopelessly time-barred, was correct and whether, that on merits the appellant was entitled to the grant of advance increments keeping in view the fact that in similar other cases, advance increments were granted to the appointees at the initial stage.
4. In so far the question of limitation is concerned, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we are satisfied that the appeal before the Service Tribunal was maintainable and was also not barred by limitation. However, on merits, we find that the findings of the learned Tribunal declining to interfere with the order of the departmental authority were fully justified.
5. It is not disputed before us that under paragraph 5(a) of Finance Division Memorandum No, F.1 (5)/R-12/80, dated 11-3-1981 premature increments could be granted on the recommendations of F.P.S.C. And in consideration of the fact that suitable persons of requisite qualification are not available at the minimum pay scale of the post. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently relied on the recommendations of the Selection Board which recommended for appointment of the appellant as Assistant Administrative Officer with 5 advance increments. The recommendations of the Selection Board relied by the learned counsel for the appellant read as follows:-- "MINISTRY OF DEFENCE DEFENCE PRODUCTION DIVISION HEAVY REBUILD FACTORIES TAXILA CANTT.
Proceedings of Departmental Selection Board for Selection of Assistant Administrative Officer (BPS-17) for Heavy Rebuild. Factories (P-7ii) Taxila Cantt.
1. The Defense Production Division's Departmental Selection Board composed as under, assembled at Chaklala Cantt. At 10-00 hrs. On 30 August, 1990 to select candidates to the post of Assistant Admn. Officer (BPS-17) in Heavy Rebuild Factories (P-7ii) Taxila Cantt.--
(a) Lt.-Gen. (Retd.) Talat Masood, Secretary (DP) Chairman
(b) Maj.-Gen. Farhat Ali Burki, Director-General, HRFs. Member
(c) Brig. (Retd.) Muhammad Akhtar Khan, Joint Secretary, Establishment Division. Member
(d) Mr. Moeen-ud-Din Siddiqui, Joint Secretary, D.P. Division Member
(e) Mr. Sardar Muhammad Anwar, Chief Admn. Officer GRFs. Secretary
2. One vacancy of Assistant Admn. Officer (BPS-17) exists in Heavy Rebuild Factories (P-7ii) against direct recruitment quota. The post was advertised in the press on 9th March, 1990 against which 37 applications were received. Sixteen candidates were not eligible for being unqualified/overage., Twenty-one candidates were called for interview by the Selection Board to select a suitable person to the vacant post.
3. The following selection criteria/marking system was adhered to:--
(a) Qualification 40 Marks
(b) Experience 40 Marks
(c) Professional Knowledge 20 Marks
(d) Personality and General 20 Marks Knowledge
(e) Pak./Islamic Studies. 20 Marks Total 140 Marks
4. The Selection Board interviewed 16 candidates, who reported for interview. Considering the qualifications, experience in the field of administration and talent of the candidates, the Selection Board has recommended the following candidates for appointment and placing on reserve panel, in order of merit:-
(a) Major (Retd.) Muhammad Ramzan S/o Ghulam Muhammad (Punjab) Selected
(b) Major (Retd.) Shahid Mehmood Khan S/o K.M. Asghar Khan (Punjab) Reserve-I
(c) Hon. Lt.-Col. (Retd.) Fakhr-e-Ehsan Latifi S/o Ehsan-ul-Haq Latifi (Punjab) Reserve-II
(d) Major (Retd.) Saqib Aziz Zaidi S/o Aziz Ahmed Zaidi (Punjab) Reserve-III 'Bio-data of candidates, method of marking and marks sheet are enclosed as per Annexure A, B, C respectively.
5. Major (Retd.) Muhammad Ramzan is a Graduate with 22 years' experience as Commissioned Officer in the Army. He has held various staff appointments at Brigade/Division level and gained rich experience of administration during his army service. He has attended Staff. College Course also and is well-equipped with the knowledge of service rules. By virtue of his qualification and experience, Maj. (Retd.) Muhammad Ramzan is the most suitable choice for the job. The Board further recommends to grant him five advance increments to help fixation of his pay commensurate with his rank to some extent and reduce the gap between the pay last drawn and the new salary in BPS-17.
6. In case the selected candidate fails to take up the appointment, the offer will be given to reserve candidate in order of merit.
7. HRFs (P-7ii) is exempted from the purview of the Federal Public Service Commission vide F . P. S.C.
(Functions) Rules.
8. Approval of the appointing authority with regard to the selection of candidates and grant of advance increments as recommended in paras. 4 and 5 above is solicited on priority.
(Sd.)
Chairman: Lt.-Gen. (Retd.)
Talat Masood)
(Sd.)
Member Maj.-Gen. (Farhat Ali Burki)
J.S. (Estb. Division)
(Brig. (Retd.) Muhammad Akhtar Khan)
J.S. (DP Division)
(Moeen-ud-Din Siddiqui)
Secretary: (Chief Admn. Officer)
(Sardar Muhammad Anwar)"
6. From reading the above minutes of the meeting of the Selection Board, it is quite clear that as many as 37 applications were received for the post of Assistant Administrative Officer (B-17) out of which 21 candidates were found eligible and they were called for interview. After interview of 21 candidates, the Selection Board selected the appellant and also recommended 3 other candidates as reserved candidates, as Nos. I, II and III respectively. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the proceedings of the Departmental Selection Board relied by him in support of his contention, there is no mention that no candidate is available for appointment as Assistant Administrative Officer at the minimum pay scale of B-17. On the contrary, from the minutes of the meeting, it is quite clear that 21 candidates were available and they were willing to accept the appointment at the initial scale of B-17. The learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on the recommendations of the Finance Division recommending grant of 5 advance increments to the appellant. The learned Tribunal while examining case of the appellant on merits, did not agree with the contention of the appellant and repelled the same as follows:-- "It may be observed that the Finance Division while considering the case of the appellant was bound to give plausible justification which was totally missing but only stated that the B.O.G., Taxila Industries was competent to recommend advance increments and that the Establishment Division subsequently granted advance increments to other officers and the case of the appellant, has only be singled out. We are of the view that it was not justified for the Finance Division to recommend increments beyond the rules and the Secretary, Establishment Division rightly did not agree.
8. The Defense Production Division in pursuance to the O.M. Dated 28-5-1994 again, prepared a summary for the Secretary, Establishment Division dated, 16-6-1994, and the Establishment Division vide O.M. Dated 15-9-1994 did not agree to the grant of advance increments, which reads as under:-- The undersigned is directed to refer to the Defence Production Division's U.O. No,1440/DP-6 (DP- 7)/94, dated 16th June, 1994, on the subject mentioned above and to say that in the absence of sufficient justification, the grant of advance increments to Maj (Retd.) Muhammad Ramzan from the date of his appointment as Assistant Administrative Officer (BS-17) in Heavy Industries Taxila would be in violation of the rules made by the Finance Division for grant of premature increments at the time of initial appointment. It is, therefore, regretted that advance increments cannot be granted to the officer.'
The premature increments could only be granted by the appointing authority after being satisfied that suitable persons of requisite qualifications were not available but as stated earlier, there were 16 candidates, out of which the Board selected one Principal and three reserve candidates for the post of Assistant Administrative Officer, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant was the only person but none-else, having the requisite qualifications for the post of Assistant Administrative Officer. Therefore, the Secretary, Establishment Division, being the appointing authority, has rightly disagreed with the views of the Finance Division and rejected the claim of the appellant and it cannot be said that it was an arbitrary order as there is no allegation of bias or element of mala fide on his part. No doubt, under F.R. 27, Finance Division has got the powers for grant of advance increments, but those powers are subject to approval of the appointing authority, which he independently exercised and the order passed by him is unexceptionable. The cases relied upon by the appellant in support of his claim are distinguishable, being on different footing."
7. We are satisfied that the advance increments in terms of the rules relied by the learned counsel for the appellant could only be granted if no other candidate was available for appointment at the minimum pay scale of B-17. As many other candidates were willing to accept the appointment at the minimum pay scale of B-17, the basic requirement of the rules was missing and therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, reproduced above, do not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for our interference. There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly, dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.