' AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 10-11-1996 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, passed in Appeal No, 484 of 1995, filed by respondent No, 1, allowing the same as follows:- "26. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appellant, being eligible under the relevant rules was duly promoted as S.E. LG & RD Department (BS-19) with effect from 23-9-1989 on the basis of the recommendations of the Provincial Selection Board, the competent selecting authority under the rules, made in its meeting held on 23-9-1989 which were approved by the Chief Minister as competent Authority on 21-1-1990 and conveyed through the U.0 dated 23-1-1990 to the respondent No, 1, and notified vide Notification dated 3-2-1990. The said promotion was admitted by respondent No, 1 to have been made in the prescribed manner by the competent Authority. No case had been made out for infringement of any rule or for any irregularity in the aforesaid promotion of the appellant. Resultantly, the said promotion is held to be regular and made in accordance with the prescribed rules and manner. The impugned Notification purporting to have been issued on 3-2-1990 (Annexure 'G' page 33), by which the earlier Notification of the same date promoting the appellant as S.E. Was withdrawn, is held to be illegal, mala fide and void ab initio and having no legal effect. The appellant has been unlawfully prevented from entering upon the office of S.E. On promotion, without his fault. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is declared entitled to all back benefits including pay and allowances attached with the post of S.E.
LG & RD (BS-19) with effect from 23-9-1989 the date from which he was promoted as such. The requisite action shall be taken by respondent No, 1 forthwith. Parties are left to bear their own costs."
2. The petitioner, who was contesting respondent No, 1's promotion the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualification, got the above Notification dated 3-2-1990 stayed, whereby respondent No, 1 was notified to have been promoted as S.E. The matter was brought before the High Court through the writ petitions inter alia by respondent No, 1 and by the petitioner through a writ of quo warrant (Writ Petition No, 7235 of 1990 dismissed on 26-4-1994). Eventually, the matter came up before the Tribunal in the form of above appeal filed by respondent No, 1, which was allowed as aforesaid. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. In support of the above petition Mr. Maqbul Elahi Malik, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioner, has urged as under:--
(i) That in 1977 the relevant rules were amended inasmuch as for the promotion from the post of Assistant Executive Engineer to the post of Executive Engineer, the requisite qualification provided was Bachelor Degree in Engineering from a recognized University or A.M.I.E. Or equivalent qualification and, therefore, in 1990 when respondent No, I was notified to be promoted as S.E. He was not eligible for promotion as XEN as admittedly he did not possess the requisite qualification for being considered for promotion as such and, therefore, he could not have been considered for promotion as S.E.
(ii) That since the work involved is of the nature specified in clause (f) of section 2 of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1975, the Departmental Promotion Committee could not have recommended the promotion of respondent No, 1 as S.E. For want of requisite qualification.
' On the other hand, Messrs K.M.A. Samdani and Hafiz Tariq Nasim, learned counsel appearing for respondent No, 1, have pointed out that respondent No, 1 was promoted as XEN prior to the above amendment in the Rules of 1977 on the basis of 1976 Rules, which recognised a Degree in Town Planning as an Engineering Degree and, therefore, reference to the above amended rules is of no relevance.
4. However, Mr. Maqbul Elahi Malik is unable to point out that there has been any violation of the rules relating to promotion from the post of XEN in the post of S.E. The Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Fida Hussain v. The Secretary, Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs Division, Islamabad and another (1996 PLC 44), which covers the present controversy and the relevant portion of which reads as under:-- "9. In this regard, we may point out that it is the domain of the Government concerned to decide whether a particular academic qualification of a civil servant/employee is sufficient for promotion from one Grade to another higher grade and whereas it is in the domain of Pakistan Engineering Council to decide, as to whether a particular academic qualification can be equated with another academic qualification, but it has no power to say that the civil servants/employees holding particular academic qualifications cannot be promoted from a particular grade to a higher grade.
The main object of the Act as pointed out by one of us (Ajmal Man, J.) and Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, C.J. (as he then was) in the above High Court judgment is to regulate the working of professional engineers and consulting engineers and no: to regulate the qualifications or the working of the engineers in the Government or semi-Government Department. The definitions of the terms 'professional engineer' and ' professional engineering work' given in clauses (j) and (k) of section 2 of the Act are to be read together and, therefore, as a corollary to the same, it must follow that the term 'professional engineering work' as defined in clause (k) of section 2 of the Act is to be performed by a professional engineer as defined in clause (j) thereof, which is evident from section 8 of the Act, which defines the functions of the Pakistan Engineering Council."
5. We do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment. Leave is refused.