1. ' SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J.---This appeal has been directed against the order of the Service Tribunal dated 27-4-1994, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant, herein, was dismissed.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was serving in Education Department of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in Grade B-18 when a notification was issued on 19-3-1991 whereby he was allowed move-over from Grades B-18 to B-19 from 1-12-1990. The grievance of the appellant is that he was entitled to get move-over from 1984 because he had reached the maximum of Grade-18 on 1-7-1983. The Service Tribunal dismissed his appeal holding that he did not possess the requisite qualifications necessary for move-over from 1984; his A.C.Rs, of the period preceding 1984 are only ' average'.
3. ' We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the file. It has been argued by Mr.Muhammad Yaqoob Mughal, Advocate, that the Service Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the appeal because in the year 1984 it was not necessary for the appellant to have earned 'good' A.C.Rs, for his move-over to Grade B-19. He has contended that the condition of earning 'good' A.C.Rs, for move-over was laid down in the year 1986 and thus the said condition could not be considered for move-over in the year 1983. He has further contended that the appellant was regularly promoted in Grade B-19 in August 1991, and thus, no benefit would accrue to him by promotion by move-over from 1-12-1990. According to the learned counsel the benefit would accrue to the appellant only if his 'move-over' is ordered from the year 1984.
4. We have given our due consideration to the matter. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the condition for earning ' good A.C.Rs, was laid down on 23-4-1986 and as such the same cannot be taken into consideration while ordering the move-over of the appellant to give B- 19 from the year 1984 is not tenable because the said condition was laid down by a partial modification of initial Notification dated 29-8-1983. Even according to the said Government Notification Instruction No, 5 in para. (d) move-over could only be ordered of the concerned civil servant is fit for promotion; in para. (e) of Instruction No,5 it has been laid down that normal promotion procedure has to be observed in cases of move-over to Grades B-19 and B-20. The learned counsel has not shown as to what was the normal procedure of move-over to Grade B-19 in the year 1984. However, the fitness for promotion is a condition precedent for move-over in view of Notification dated 29-8-1993. The Service Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant had been indulging in objectionable activities during the period preceding to 1984. It has been specifically recorded by the Tribunal that the appellant resorted to in uncalled for measures for getting increased quota of sugar from the Government depot as a Principal of College. A letter has also been placed on record of the file of Service Tribunal in that regard. In other words irrespective of the facts as to whether the conditions of ' good' A.C.Rs, were required for move-over or not in the year 1984, the Service Tribunal pointed that in view of the conduct of the appellant he could not be regarded fit for promotion or for that matter move-over from 1984. So far as the condition of earning 'good' A.C.Rs, is concerned that was incorporated by way of an amendment in the notification dated 29-8-1983. As the matter of move-over of the appellant did not come up for consideration prior to 23-4-1986, the date on which the condition of ' good' A.C.Rs, has been laid down, it cannot be said that the said condition would not apply in case of the appellant especially so when the appellant did not raise the question of his move-over to the year 1990.
5. ' In the light of what has been stated above finding no force in this appeal it is hereby dismissed with no order as to the costs.