1. ' We intend to dispose of I.C.As. Nos,273, 274 and 275 of 2000 by one consolidated order having similar facts and law as the aforesaid I C.As. Have been filed against the same impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 4-4-2000 whereby the Writ Petitions Nos,2206, 2207 and 2208 of 2000, filed by the appellants challenging the vises of order,, dated 25-1-2000 passed by Senior Member (Revenue). Board of Revenue on the representations of the private respondents, were dismissed.
2. ' Brief facts out of which these appeals arise are that in order to fill up four vacancies of 'B' Class Naib-Tehsildars from quota of 12% by promotion through selection in the Lahore Division, the Commissioner. Lahore Division invited nomination rolls of eligible officials of the Board of Revenue, attached Departments of the Revenue Department and offices of Deputy Commissioners in Lahore Division. On receipt of nomination rolls, of the. Aforesaid officials, the matter was placed before the Divisional Selection/Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 27-5-1999 and the Committee recommended selection of the appellants for promotion of the said post alongwith Ghulam Nabi Shahid. On the basis of the aforesaid recommendations of the said Selection Committee on 28-5- 1999 regarding selection of the appellants and another as B Class Naib-Tehsilda r,- orders were issued by the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore.The respondents Nos,2 to 6 being candidates for the said post were ignored by the DPC, they filed representations under section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 before the Senior Member. (Revenue), Board of Revenue/Secretary to the Government of Punjab Revenue Department who accepted the same vide order, dated 25-1-2000 and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner for fresh decision.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the representation of private respondents before the Senior Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue was not competent as the appellants were recruited directly and he relied upon the following reported judgments:--
(i) (1987 SCMR 882) Faqir Muhammad v. Secretary to Government of Agriculture Department and others.
(ii) (1992 SCMR 365).
3. ' The learned counsel has further argued that the learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment reported as Lal and others v. Commissioner, Lahore Division and others (1984 SCMR 623) which is distinguishable on the facts and law as in 'he cited case, matter of promotion was in question whereas in the present case, appellants were initially appointed, therefore, no representation was competent relating to determination of fitness of person to hold a particular post or to be promoted; further argued that the learned Single Judge erred in law to hold that the appellants have a right to file an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The appellants have got no right to file appeal before the Service Tribunal by virtue of section 4, proviso 1, as the matter relates to the determination of fitness of a person to hold a particular post, hence, appeal before Service Tribunal is specifically barred by aforesaid proviso. Further argued that the action of the respondents is hit by Article 25 of the Constitution and the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Sherwani's case 1991 SCMR 1041; further argued that the learned Single Judge erred in law to consider that appellants were promoted but in fact appellants were appointed directly, therefore, question of terms and conditions of service of the appellants being civil servants does not arise as the appellants are not civil servants, therefore, they have only remedy to challenge the up of the order, dated 25-1-2000 in Constitutional jurisdiction as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Ahmad Salman Waris v. Nadeem and 5 others (PLD 1997 SC 382). The learned Single Judge was not justified to dismiss the Constitutional petitions of the appellants in view of the bar by Article 212 of the Constitution. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is in violation of the law laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments reported as:--
(1) Rana Muhammad Asif v. The Secretary to Government of Punjab and others (1994 PLC (C.S.)
4. 1331),
(2) Muhammad Anis and others v. Abdul Haseeb and others (PLD 1994 SC 539),
(3) Muhammad Nasir Khan v. The District and Sessions Judge and others (1998 PLC (C.S.) 254),
(4) Iqbal Ahmad Khan v. The Commissioner, D.I. Khan and others (1996 PLC (C.S.) 212),
(5) S. Irshad-ur-Rehman v. Government of Pakistan through Chairman and others (1993 PLC (C.S.)
5. 39),
(6) Ashfaq Ahmed Qureshi v. Pro,. Ince of Punjab and others (1992 PLC (C :S.) 898),
(7) Muhammad Yar. Buttar and 4 others v. Board of Governors (1999 SCMR 819) ' and
(8) ' Abid Mahmood v. Government of Pakistan and 241 other (1996 PLC ( C. S 1061) . Furthr argued that the action of the respondents is in violation of the Punjab Revenue Department (Revenue, Administration, Post) Rules, 1990.
4. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record ourselves. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the facts in chronological order to see whether I.C.As. Are maintainable by virtue of proviso of section 3(2) of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 or not:
(i) Nomination rolls were invited by competent authority to fill four vacancies of B Class Naib- Tehsildars in Lahore Division.
(ii) Nomination rolls were received and placed before the Divisional Selection/Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 27-5-1999.
(iii) Selection Committee/Promotion Committee recommended the appellants alongwith hulam Nabi Shahid.
(iv) Selection/Promotion letter was issued by the Commissioner on 28-5 1999 (Annexure B).
6. ' The respondents Nos,2 to 6 filed representations before the Senior Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue who accepted the same vide order, dated 25 1-2000.
7. ' In order to determine whether the private respondents were justified to file the representation before the Senior Member, Board of Revenue, it is better and appropriate to reproduce relevant rules on the basis of which appellant's were selected for the post. Of B' Class Naib-Tehsildar; amended up to 1992:
(i) 50% initial recruitment.
(ii) 38% by promotion of seniority-cum-fitness basis from amongst Kanugos in the Division with at least three years as such.
(iii) 12% by promotion through selection on merit from amongst subordinates service as under:-- ' Assistants, Stenographers and Senior Clerks of Revenue Department in the Division who have three years' experience as such.
8. The case of the appellants and private respondents falls under Category No,(iii) in which the word promotion' has been mentioned by competent authority which clearly reveals that matter relates to the terms and conditions of service of the appellants and respondents, therefore, he private respondents were well within their right to file representation under section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 as law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Law and others' case (1984 SCMR 623) before the Senior Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue.In case the aforesaid facts are put in juxtaposition, then it. Is clear than these appeals are not maintainable by virtue of section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. To hold so, we are fortified by the following reported judgments Muhammad Haroon V. District. Food Controller (1980 SCMR page 720), Mst. Karim Bibi and others v. Hussain Bux and another (PLD 1984 SC 344) and Muhammad Abdullah v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner Central I, Lahore (PLD 1985 SC 107); hence, these I.C.As. Are not maintainable and the same are hereby dismissed in limine.