' SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J.---These three appeals through leave of this Court are directed against the Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Interior Division as well as against the Director-General, Federal Investigation Agency (F.I.A.), Secretary, Establishment Division and other respondents calling in question the orders of the Federal Service Tribunal whereby the appeals preferred by the appellants against the refusal of the first three respondents to promote them to a post in Grade-17 were dismissed on the ground that no vacancies were existing.
2. Facts in Civil Appeal No, 510 of 1994 are that the appellant Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah was recruited as Sub-Inspector in the F.I.A. On 11-11-1976. In due course of time he was promoted to the rank of Inspector. A seniority list was prepared by the Tribunal wherein the appellant was placed at serial No,26 while respondents Nos.4, 5 and 6 in this appeal were shown at serial Nos. 35, 44 and 78 respectively. In the meanwhile, the question of promotion became ripe and it is alleged that the Departmental Promotion Committee by ignoring and violating the settled principle to promote a person on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness, promoted the respondents to the post of Assistant Director in BPS-17 and the appellant was ignored. The appellant agitated the matter with the department by way of filing a representation dated 15-12-1991 to which no heed was paid and, thus, the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal to seek redress of his grievance. The Tribunal with the consent of the department by placing reliance upon another decision in the case of similar nature passed an order that the case of the appellant be looked into afresh particularly so when officers junior to the appellant had been promoted without considering the case of the appellant. The Tribunal further directed the department to decide the issue within three months. According to the appellant he kept on agitating the matter pressing upon the authorities to implement the decision of the Tribunal, but all these efforts proved to be futile. The appellant, therefore, filed a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal for the implementation of its earlier order. The departmental representative appeared and stated before the Tribunal that in accordance with the direction of the Tribunal, the case of the appellant was considered, but the appellant could not be promoted because no vacancies existed. The appellant then urged before the Tribunal that his case was not at all considered in the meeting and the merit of the appellant with regard to seniority was also not taken into account and the representation filed by him was also ignored. The Tribunal, however, observed that in view of the statement of the departmental representative there was hardly anything to be implemented in so far as its earlier judgment dated 22-4-1993 was concerned. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 20-12-1993 disposing of the civil miscellaneous application filed by the appellant seeking implementation, the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of this Court and leave to appeal was granted.
3. Facts in Civil Appeal No,511 of 1994 are almost similar to the facts in Civil Appeal No,510 of 1994. In this matter as well, the appellant had sought implementation of the order of the Tribunal dated 22- 4-1993, but vide order dated 16-12-1993 the appellant's miscellaneous application, like that of appellant Iftikhar Hussain Shah, was also disposed of by the Tribunal by observing that nothing remained to be implemented because no vacancy existed against which the appellant could be promoted.
4. Facts in Civil Appeal No,447 of 1997 are that on 12-6-1986 the appellant Muhammad Gulshan Khan was recruited as Inspector in F.I.A. The grievance of the appellant was that the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 29-3-1995 ignored the appellant for promotion and respondents Nos. 13 to 15, who were junior to the appellant, had been promoted. The appellant like others, who had also been ignored, invoked the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal and on 13-4-1993 the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by making the following orders:-- "At this stage, we can neither go into the question of fitness or otherwise of the appellants, nor can set aside the impugned notification of promotion of the respondents, but since the request of the appellants appears to be reasonable, we direct the competent Authority to consider the cases of the appellants on merits and according to law, for promotion in case it has not been done after 1989 and this exercise, in view of the above observations, may be completed within three months."
' Despite the above direction of the Tribunal, the department did not pay any heed to the matter and, thus, the appellant invoked jurisdiction of this Court and vide order dated 10-5-1994 this Court disposed of the petition by making the following observation:-- "There is nothing on the record before us to reach the conclusion that the petitioners were not promoted in spite of vacancies in the department. On the contrary on our query the learned counsel for the petitioners admitted that after the order of Tribunal dated 13-4-1993, no one has been promoted by the Department in BPS-17 However, if the petitioners feel sure that there are vacancies in the Department, they may approach the Departmental Authorities for action according to the order of Tribunal dated merely an eyewash inasmuch as while promoting certain officers to posts in Grade-17 in 1989, the Departmental Promotion Committee had not acted in accordance with the settled principles to .Be kept in view for promoting officers or for ignoring any of them. In the year 1989 while promoting officers no reasons were given as to why appellants in Civil Appeals Nos.510 and 511 of 1994 were being ignored and as to why officers junior to them were being promoted. It was incumbent upon the departmental promotion committee to have considered the annual confidential reports and other material as well as the merits of each candidate while deciding to promote or ignore an official. It goes without saying that a functionary who is entrusted with a certain task under statute is required to perform his duties faithfully, honestly and diligently., The Departmental Promotion Committee being a body set up by law was, thus, required to have carefully considered the pros and cons of their acts and by merely saying that no vacancy existed after 1989 would not amount to a legal action under the statute and the rules. In the absence of any adverse circumstance against the appellants, in flagrant disregard of the principle of seniority-cum-fitness, the appellants prima facie have been ignored."
6. Similar is the case in Civil Appeal No,447 of 1997. In this case, of course certain persons senior to the appellant were promoted, but we have also noticed that some junior officers to the appellant were also promoted by ignoring the appellant. What was the basis, therefor, the record is not self- speaking. As already observed, it was the bounden duty of the Departmental Promotion Committee to examine the merits of each of the candidates ignoring the appellant and if, at all, the appellant was to be ignored, there should have been some basis for the same. We would further refrain to go into the merits of the appellants and the other officers because this is the function of the Departmental Promotion Committee.
7. Resultantly, we have no option, but to allow these appeals with the direction to the respondents to re-examine the cases of the appellants in all these three appeals in juxtaposition with those of the respondent officers and others, if any, for considering their merits for being promoted to a post in BPS-17. There will be no order as to costs.