ABDUL HAMEED KHAN KHATTAK (MEMBER).---This appeal is directed against an order dated 1-9- 1998 passed by the respondent whereby respondent Nos. 2 to 4, although junior to the appellant, were promoted and the appellant was superseded.
2. Facts to be gleaned from the record are that for promotion to 7 posts of Grade-6 lying vacant, a D.P.C. meeting was held on 7-5-1996 and the appellant, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and others were consider& for promotion and as a consequence respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were promoted to Grade-6 but the appellant was superseded although the said respondents were junior to him and appellant maintained that he was having all required qualifications for promotion against which he made departmental representation which having not been responded resulting in preferring this appeal on 29-12-1998 on the grounds that the said respondents were junior to him and there was no reason for appellant being superseded qua them, he was granted Selection Grade retrospectively with effect from 5-5-1994 and move-over on 1-1-1996 thus, appellant maintained that on the same analogy he should have been promoted to Grade-6 and that his supersession was result of discrimination and that he could not be deprived of his such vested right of promotion hence the prayer that the order of promotion of those respondents be set aside and respondent No, 1 be directed to promote the appellant to Grade-6 with full back benefits with effect from 21-6-1995.
3. Respondents contested this appeal by controverting the above assertions as according to them even the case of the appellant was considered by D.P.C. but he was not found fit/suitable for promotion and thus was superseded whereas respondents Nos. 2 to 4, although junior to him, were found suitable for promotion thus they were so promoted to Grade-6.
4. Arguments heard, record perused.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that respondents Nos.2 to 4 were junior to the appellant, appellant was having all the required qualifications for being promoted to Grade-6 and that his no promotion/supersession was result of discrimination and he has fortified his such contention by further elaborating that grant of ante-dated Selection Grade and move-over to the appellant was speaking volumes of his having acquired a vested right for promotion since 1995.
6. These contents were opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
7. We have considered these contentions raised on behalf of the appellant in the light of the available record but do not feel convinced at all.
8. A perusal of the minutes of the meeting of D.P.C. held on 7-5-1996 clearly reveal that 6 officials were promoted from Grade-5 to Grade-6 and the case of appellant was also considered but he was not found suitable for promotion to Grade-6 by the D.P.C. and as such was ordered to be superseded. Thereafter appellant applied for reviewing the said order for which a meeting of D.P.C. was again held on 13-6-1996 but once again he was not found suitable for promotion.
9. Mere grant of a--e-dated Selection Grade or move-over to the appellant did not arm him with a vested right to be promoted to Grade-6 as the Selection Grade in fact was granted to the appellant and many others in view of the terms and conditions of an agreement arrived at between C.B.A. and the respondent-department whereby as per demand of C.B.A., the employees who were working in OPF Grade-4 at the time of application of service rules in September, 1993 were agreed to be granted promotion/Selection Grade/move-over in Grade-6 instead of Grade-5 whenever the vacancy occurred and the said proposal/demand was acceded to by the Board of Governors in its 63rd meeting held on 30-6-1997. It transpires that in- consequence thereof on 1-9- 1998, the appellant, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and many others were granted selection grades from various back dates (appellant was to be considered as having been entitled to this right from 5-5- 1994). It is well settled that move-over cannot be equated with promotion. The promotion of Grades-4, 5 and 6 was to be done on the criteria of seniority-cum-fitness i,e, mere seniority will not result in promotion, but other pre-requisite for promotion is fitness. It is the exclusive jurisdiction of D.P.C. to determine the fitness for promotion of an official and no official could as of right claim to be promoted simply being senior to others. It was inter alia held in 1991 SCM R 1129 (Full Bench) as under: "What is barred from the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is the question of fitness of a civil servant for promotion. The determination of his eligibility is a question on which jurisdiction of the Tribunal has not been barred. The question of eligibility relates primarily to the terms and conditions of service and their applicability to the civil servant concerned. Fitness introduces an element of subjective valuation on the basis of objective criteria where substitution for an opinion of the competent Authority is not possible by that of a Tribunal or a Court. It is in this background that the question of fitness or suitability for promotion has always been considered to be exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent Authority not shared by the Court or Tribunal exercising supervisory jurisdiction in respect of eligibility and qualification. On the question of eligibility and qualification no such bar exists either on express words of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act or even by implication...."
10.The appellant as well as learned counsel seem to have been laboring under misconception that appellant being senior to respondent Nos.2 to 4 was having a vested right to be promoted to Grade-6 but they ignored the other necessary required ingredient of suitability/fitness. As already given above, this Tribunal is incompetent to substitute the observations/opinion of the D.P.C. by its own with regard to promotion of appellant or any other official nor we can sit in judgment over the reasons given by the D.P.C. resulting in supersession of the appellant.
11.It is not the case of the appellant that his candidature was not considered by the D.P.C. for the purpose of promotion.
12.For all the aforesaid reasons the appeal being sans merits, is hereby dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
13.Copies of this Judgment be sent to all the concerned through registered mail.