' SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---This petition seeking leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 22-2-1999, delivered by the Federal Service Tribunal whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner calling in question the decision of the Selection Board refusing to according him the seniority was rejected.
2. The litigation in this case has a chequered history. The petitioner joined Police Service of Pakistan in 1970 and was performing duties as S.S.P., Kasur, when he was suspended under MLO 17 in the year 1982. An inquiry was instituted against him, but ultimately the Martial Law Administrator, Zone-A, Punjab, dropped the inquiry and he was reinstated in service with effect from 2-11-1983 with full back benefits. While the petitioner was under suspension, the officers of his batch were promoted on the recommendation of the Selection Board, but the case of the petitioner was deferred on account of the pendency of the inquiry against him. In the year 1985, the petitioner was finally selected and approved for promotion as D.I.G., Police.
3. The petitioner then made representations for seeking protection of his original seniority as from 1982, which he would have got if he had not been suspended. Not receiving any favourable reply, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal, which was dismissed vide order, dated 26-5-1986. The said order passed by the Tribunal was challenged in this Court, but this Court declined to interfere and C.A. No,63 of 1991 was dismissed vide order, dated 1-12-1992. The petitioner sought review of the said judgment, but this Court again declined to interfere vide order, dated 11- 10-1993. The petitioner then invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court by way of filing Writ Petition No, 428 of 1998, which was dismissed vide order, dated 30-9-1998. An Intra-Court Appeal against the said order was also dismissed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court vide order, dated 19-10-1998.
4. In pursuance of an interim order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition directing that the petitioner's case be also considered for promotion alongwith his batchmates, a meeting of the Selection Board took place and on 12-12-1997, the case of the petitioner was deferred for want of range experience and because of the missing ACR for the year 1986. The interim order of the High Court in pursuance of which the Selection Board considered the case of the petitioner reads as under:-- "In the meantime the case of the petitioner for further promotion shall be considered alongwith his those batchmates, who were promoted in December, 1982 considering as if he had also been promoted alongwith them, which shall be subject to decision in this Writ Petition."
' Aggrieved by the decision of the Selection Board, the petitioner again invoked the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal and in our view the Tribunal vide order impugned rightly concluded that the Selection Board's decision if at all recommending the petitioner to be promoted, would be subject to the fate of the writ petition. Since the writ petition was dismissed, therefore, the Tribunal rightly observed that the decision of the Selection Board was conditional and therefore, the interim order also lost its efficacy.
5. The petitioner, who appeared in person, argued that lack of range experience and missing of the ACR for a particular year could not stand in his way to be promoted. The contention is devoid of force because as already observed the promotion of the petitioner was subject to the fate of the writ petition. Since the same was dismissed, even if the Selection Board had recommended the petitioner for promotion, the said order could not have been implemented because the order in pursuance of which the Selection Board had to meet and consider the promotion of the petitioner, did not exist. At this juncture, it Will not be out of place to observe that the High Court had wrongly assumed jurisdiction in this case by passing an interim order in pursuance of which the meeting of the Selection Board took place. The High Court had in fact lost sight of Article 212(1)(a) of the Constitution ousting its jurisdiction in matters where the question involved pertained to enforcement of terms and conditions of civil servants. On this score as well, the petitioner cannot claim any. Relief. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the Selection Board met twice to consider the promotion of officers to Grade-21, but the case of the petitioner was deferred because in the meantime, the writ petition had been dismissed. The Tribunal by way of abundant caution also perused the gradation list of the Police Service of Pakistan, which revealed that the petitioner had not been superseded according to the seniority except possibly by one person, who got out of turn promotion.
6. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed.
Leave to appeal is refused.
7. We have heard Saad Sharif petitioner in Criminal Original Petition No,50 of 1999, but we do not find any substance in the same. The said petition is also dismissed.