SHARIF HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.-- This order shall dispose of Writ Petition No. 3493/95 & writ Petition No. 18008/95 as common question of facts and law are involved.
2. In the year 1975, the Punjab Relief Department was established by the Punjab Provincial Govt, vide Notification dated 25.11.1976, the Rules of Service prescribing conditions for the recruitment and other allied matters were issued by the order of the Governor of the Punjab. These Rules were superseded ^and new Rules known as the Punjab Relief Department Service Rules, 1987 were framed vide Notification dated 25.6.1987. Through Notification dated 13.10.1990 the Governor of the Punjab-substituted the entries against serial No. 11 of the Schedule to the Seryice Rules of 1987 and vide Notification dated 17.1.1995,, the entries against serial No. 11 of the schedule were further amended by the order of the Governor of the Punjab. The last Notification dated 17.1.1995 has been challenged in these writ petitions by the petitioners who are working in the Punjab Relief Department.2. f Muhammad Ilyas, the petitioner in W.P. No. 3493/95 is the Deputy Superintendent whereas the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 18008/95 are Assistants, Senior Clerks and Junior Clerks in the same department. The report was called for which was submitted by the Relief Commissioner, respondent No. 3. Writ Petition No. 3493/95 was admitted to regular hearing on 11.7.1995. Subsequently, Rehmat Ali and Muhammad Sajjad, who were serving as Senior Scale Stenographers, made application for their impleadment as respondents. Their request was granted. Thereafter they also filed written statement which was followed by the rejoinder bf the petitioner Muhammad Ilyas.
3. The main ground on which the Notification dated 17.1.1995 amendingthe relevant rules has been challenged is that it is discriminatory against the petitioners and the other employees of their category in the Punjab Relief Department inasmuch as further promotion to the post of Superintendent in BS-16 would practically stand restricted to the Senior Scale Stenographers who are a different class than the petitioners in the Department. It is claimed that no such discrimination is made in the service rule of the other department by the Punjab Government. It is finally argued that under ^e initial Rule of Service the Senior Scale Stenographers were hot eligible for further promotion to the post of Superintendent.
4. In the report submitted by respondent No. 3. It is stated that the promotion to the post of Superintendent is made from amongst the Senior Scale Stenographers and the. Assistants of the Department on the basis of their seniority- twM-witness. It is also stated that "The existing Service Rules of the Relief Department provide equal promotion chances to both the categories of employeesi. e. Senior Scale Stenographers and Assistants." With regard to the amending rule.,? ^ Wit is stated in the report that the attachment in the rules was made after due deliberation by the Service Rules Committee of the S*G.A. & I.D. And approved by the competent authority.
5. As observed above, the grievance of the petitioners is that through impugned amendment in the Rules of Service, the petitioners are being and shall be discriminated in the matter of promotion.
The amended entries against serial No. 11 of the schedule to the Punjab Relief Department Service Rules, 1987 dispel this apprehension of the petitioners which states, that the promotion to the post of Superintendent shall be "on the basis of seniority-cn/n-funess from amongst Assistants and Senior Scale Stenographers with at least 5 years service as such."
6. With regard to the objection against the maintainability of these writ petitions it was submitted by Mr. Muhammad Ghani, Advocate, leamed counsel for the petitioners that no appeal is competent under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, against the impugned Notification which was issued by the order of the Governor of the Punjab who is not a departmental authority, therefore, the bar under An. 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 did not operate in the present case.
7. Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the privaterespondents has referred to the judgement of this Coun passed in Writ Petition No.16941/93 entitled "Nazir Ahmad. Assistant and others v. Govt, of the Punjab andothers" in which the amendment dated 13.10.1990 in the Service Rules of 1987 tothe same effecnas that of the Notification dated 17.1.1995, was challenged and theleamed Judge while dismissing the writ petition observed as follows:-"I am afraid this petition is hit by Article 212 of the Constitution as ruled by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Iqan Ahmed Khurram v. Govemment of Pakistan and others (PLD 1980-SC 153) that the vires of the rules can also be examined by the Service Tribunal if the dispute is taken to it." ; '
'8. In the case of Iqan Ahmad Khurram (PLD 1980 SC 153) while deciding the question of maintainability of the petition on account of the challenge to the vires of the rules relating to the method of recruitment and promotion to the higher post or grade, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-"We may here point out that a distinction has to be drawn between a case where the eligibility of an officer as to his fitness to hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher grade under the Rules applicable to him aitd the Rules which by themselves alter the method of recruitment and promotion. In the former case, proviso (b) to section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, will be applicable and no appeal will lie to the Service Tribunal. However, this will not be so in the latter case as the Rules per force alter the method of recruitment and promotion in supersession of the existing Rules which provide a cause : of action for the grievance qua the alteration of terms and conditions ofservice and hence an appeal will lie to the Service Tribunal."
Subsequently, in the case of I.A. Shanvani and other] v. Government of Pakistan (1991 SCM R 1041) the same view was re-affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by observing as follows:- "From the above-cited cases, it is evident that it has been consistently held inter alia by this Court that civil servant if is aggrieved by a final order, whether original or appellate, passed by a departmental authority in respect of his terms and conditions, his remedy, if any. Is by way of an appeal before the Service Tribunal even where the case involves vires of a particular Service Rule or a notification or the question, whether an accused civil servant can claim the right to be represented by a counsel before the Enquiry Officer. We are inclined to hold that if a statutory rule or a notification adversely affects the terms and conditions of a civil servant, the same can be treated as an order in terms of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act in order to file an appeal before the Service Tribunal."
9. Admittedly, the petitioners are the civil servants, serving in the Punjab Relief Department. The impugned Notification, according to the petitioners' learned counsel, has, adversely affected and diminished the chances of their promotion to the post of the Superintendent. Thus, the amendment introduced in the Rules of Service through the impugned Notification relates to the terms and ^conditions of service of the petitioners, therefore, an appeal is competent before the Punjab Service Tribunal under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 wherein the impugned Notification can be treated as an order of the departmental authority and the vires of the amending Rules can also be challenged as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Iqan Ahmad Klntrram'and I.A. Sherwani, supra. If appeal is filed by the petitioners, the Punjab Service Tribunal may take into consideration the time spent in these proceedings while deciding the question of limitation, if any.
10. For the foregoing reasons, these writ petitions are dismissed on account of lack of jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution in view of the bar under Art.212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. No order as to cost.