MUMTAZ ALI MIRZA, J.- The facts as disclosed in the petition are that the petitioner entered service through Federal Public Service Commission and joined Pakistan Audit and Accounts Service in the year 1963. Respondent No. 2 also belongs to the same service but according to the petitioner he entered the service also through Federal Public Service Commission in the year 1965. The petitioner Syed Athar Ali Zaidi, is presently holding the post of Additional Secretary, Ministry of Railways/Member (Finance) in BPS-21 while respondent No. 2 before his appointment under challenge was holding the post of Accountant General Punjab in BPS-21. It has further been stated in the Constitutional petition that according to the seniority list of Pakistan Audit and Accounts Service which is now called Accounts Group, the petitioner is at serial No. 2 of the seniority list while respondent No. 2 is at serial No. 6 of the seniority list and that it shows the petitioner as belonging to 1963 batch and respondent No. 2 as belonging to 1965. It has -further been disclosed in the Constitutional petition that the post of Comptroller General in the office of the Auditor General of Pakistan was held by Mr. Muhammad Shoaib Ansari who was in BPS-20. The said post of Controller 'General was upgraded from BP-21 to BPS-22 by respondent No. 1 with the approval of the Finance Division, Government of Pakistan. The matter of selection of Comptroller General on regular basis was referred to the Central Selection Board-I which in its meeting on 5.7.1997 decided to defer the matter. By Notification No. 99-Dir(A)/2-2/97 dated 9.7.1997 Auditor General of Pakistan/respondent No. 1 appointed respondent No. 2 on current charge basis subject to the approval of the competent authority as Comptroller General in Auditor General's Office, Islamabad. The Notification dated 9.7.1997 in the first instance stated that the competent authority had been pleased to order the posting/transfer of respondent No. 2 on current charge basis but later stated that it shall be subject to the approval of the competent authority. The Notification dated 9.7.1997 was followed by another Notification No. 100-Dir(A)/2-2-97 dated 10.7.1997 whereby Auditor General of Pakistan appointed respondent No. 2 as Comptroller General on acting charge basis pending approval of the competent authority with immediate effect and until further orders.
2. The petitioner, Syed Athar Ali Zaidi, has assailed the appointment of respondent No. 2 as Comptroller General on the following grounds:-
(a) that the office order dated 13.2.1997 whereby the post of Comptroller General was upgraded from BPS-21 to BPS-22 did not envisage the appointment of a person to the upgraded post of Comptroller General either on current charge basis, or acting charge basis and that the upgradation was to be effective from the date the post was filled by person in the higher grade in the manner prescribed under the existing rules;
(b) that a bare reading of the Office Order dated 13.2.1997 would itself show that neither respondent No. 1 Auditor General of Pakistan could appoint a person in the higher grade nor could respondent No. 2 hold the post int the said higher grade either on current charge basis or acting charge basis.
For the purpose of appointment/promotion to BPS-22, the recommendations of the Central Selection Board-I and the orders of the competent authority i.e. Prime Minister were a must;
(c) that respondent No. 2 also could not hold the post on which he was appointed in the absence of the orders of the competent authority;
(d) that even for making the appointment on acting charge basis the approval of the Prime Minister was essential.
3. The petitioner reacted to the appointment of respondent No. 2 vide his letter dated 10.7.1997 addressed to the Auditor General of Pakistan/respondent No.1. The said letter of the petitioner was responded to vide D.O. No. 37-Dir(A)/2-2/97 dated 11.7.1997 of Deputy Auditor General (Admin & Coord) Islamabad and he was informed that the Central Selection Bord-l which met on 5.7.1997 did not consider a final selection of Comptroller General on account of certain constraints. Accordingly, the Board decided to defer the matter to another date. The Central Selection Board-I, however, advised that the local arrangements could be made in the meanwhile. Accordingly the arrangements to post a Comptroller General were made in consultation with the Establishment Division. A summary for the approval of the competent authority had however, been submitted through the Establishment Division for the purpose. The (communication dated 11.7.1997 further said that as and when the Central .Selection Board convenes again a regular promotion to BPS- 22 will be decided and notified accordingly. The petitioner still not satisfied with the response' already received and referred to herein, addressed yet another letter dated 12.7.1997 to the Auditor General of Pakistan/respondent No. 1 which was respondent to vide his letter dated 12.7.1997 and-the petitioner informed that the transfer-appointment of respondent -No. 2 was only by way of local arrangement as advised by the Central Selection Board-I. The petitioner was further informed that even for this local arrangement summary had been submitted to the competent authority for its approval.
4. The petitioner feeling still not satisfied with the aforesaid communications of the Auditor General of Pakistan has instituted the instant writ petition and has questioned the appointment of respondent No. 2 on the grounds hereinabove reproduced.
5. At the very outset, it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the question canvassed in the instant writ petition relates to the terms and conditions of the petitioner and as such could not be raised before this Court and could be taken to the Service Tribunal and that the jurisdiction of this Court was barred under Article 212 of the Constitution. The learned counsel, however, submitted with reference to Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, that the petitioner could go to the Tribunal only if there was final order in the field, whether original or appellate, made by the departmental authority in respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service and that in the absence of such tin order the petitioner could not approach the Tribunal in appeal. In furtherance of his this submission learned counsel placed reliance on judgment reported as Dr. Ahmad Salman Waris v. Dr. Naeem Akhtar and 5 others (PLD 1997 SC 382) and submitted that in order to make a matter exclusively cognizable' by a Tribunal under the Act, and to create an ouster of jurisdiction of all other Courts a id Tribunals under Article 212 of the Constitution, it must be shown that the matter was agitated by a civil servant as defined under the Act, it has arisen from a final order of a departmental authority whether original or appellate, it concerns the terms' and conditions of the aggrieved civil servant and that it was not covered by the exceptions mentioned in proviso (b)(i) and (ii) of Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Mr. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, leamed counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the fact that the petitioner was not civil servant and that the question raised in the writ petition was not concerned with the terms and conditions of the petitioner. The sole grievance made by the leamed counsel was to the effect that in. The absence of a final order he could not approach the Service Tribunal for the relief that he has asked for through the instant Constitutional petition and that this being so on the basis of the case law i.e. PLD 1997S.C. 382 (supra) his writ petition in the absence of a final order passed by the departmental authority could proceed and was maintainable and the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 212 was not barred.
6. I have examined the question raised by the leamed counsel with reference to Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 as also the case law referred to by the leamed counsel. In my view the argument of the learned counsel is without any legal force. The provision of law as contained in Section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973, whereunder only a final order could be assailed in appeal before the Tribunal whether original or appellate, has since been amended by Act No. XVII of 1997 dated 10.6.1997 whereby the word "Final" has been omitted from Section 4 of sub-section (i) of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973. Resultantly, after the amendment in question, any order of the departmental authority of which a civil servant feels aggrieved, no matter final or otherwise can be agitated before the Service Tribunal. The argument of the leamed counsel after the amendment in the law referred to herein, cannot be entertained. The writ petition whereby the question relating to the terms and conditions of the service has been agitated cannot be entertained by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.