' The appellant Muhammad Tariq Sharif, Deputy Director, National Training Centre for Disabled Persons, presently posted at Directorate General of Special Education, Islamabad instituted Writ Petition No,337 of 2000 praying as follows:-- "(i) That this Hon'ble Court's judgment/order, dated 27-1-1999 passed in Writ Petition No,1233 of 1995 may kindly be clarified to the extent of it not placing any bar on the processing of the promotion case of the petitioner to the post of Director in BPS-19 in NTCDP as per the NTCDP Recruitment Rules of 1988.
(ii) That appropriate directions may kindly be issued to the Respondents to process the petitioner's promotion case accordingly from due date without any further delay.
(iii) That revised consolidated Recruitment Rules be not notified until and unless the promotion case of the petitioner, as prayed for above, has been fmaiized.
(iv) That pending the final disposal of the writ petition, the petitioner may also be granted interim relief by restraining the respondents from promoting any other Deputy Director in DGSE to the post of Director (BPS.19).
(v) That any other favourable relief as may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case, in hand may also kindly be granted to the petitioner."
2. The learned Single Judge, vide his order, dated 21-2-2000 disposed of the petition with the observations that the Constitutional petition was incompetent because of the bar as contained in Article 212 of the Constitution as the matter related to the terms and conditions of the. Petitioner's service, who is admittedly a civil servant.
3. The relevant facts are that the appellant was appointed as Social Welfare Officer in BPS.16 in Punjab Social Welfare Department, Government of Punjab with effect from 21-3-1985 and on 27-1- 1991 he was selected for the post of Social Welfare Officer (BPS.17) by the Federal Public Service Commission in National Training Centre for Disabled Persons (NTCDP). The appellant was thereafter promoted as Deputy Director, NTCDP (BPS.18) with effect from 6-7-1995 upon recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 31-5-1995. It is also alleged that the appellant was granted promotion with a delay of two years since the same was actually due in 1993. The Directorate General of Special Education (DGSE), Islamabad circulated a combined seniority list dated 20-1-1997 of employees of both the DGSE and NTCDP. The petitioner's case is that presently there are three independent institutions functioning under the Ministry of Women Development, Social Welfare and Special Education (respondent No,1), which have their separate notified Recruitment Rules which provide the procedure for the appointment, promotion, transfer etc. For their respective employees. The aforesaid three institutions are as under:-- "(1) Directorate General of Special Education (DGSE), Islamabad.
(2) National Institute for Handicapped (NIH), Islamabad.
(3) National Training Centre for Disabled Persons (NTCDP), Islamabad."
' It is also the case of the appellant that being an employee of NTCDP, the service of the petitioner is governed by the NTCDP Recruitment Rules notified under S.R.O. 1194, dated 22-12-1988 which provide the criterion for appointment, promotion, transfer etc. For the employees of NTCDP alone, according to which a Social Welfare Officer in BPS.17 is eligible for promotion in BPS.18 as a Deputy Director after completion of five years service in BPS.17 and a Deputy Director is eligible for further promotion in I3PS.19 as Director on the completion of 12 years service in BPS.17 and above and, therefore, being aggrieved by the combined seniority list, as mentioned above, the petitioner approached the respondents through representation, dated 12-5-1997 urging that the promotion of the petitioner is governed by NTCDP Recruitment Rules and his seniority should be determined separately and that he tops seniority order in BPS.18 in NTCDP and his seniority should not be mixed or confused with that of DGSE whose employees are governed by a different set of Recruitment Rules. It is further alleged that the appellant's representation was accepted and Establishment Division was pleased to issue an order vide O.M. No,F-1/17/97-R-4, dated 1-9-1997 and his name was declared to be deleted from the combined/joint seniority list of Deputy Directors and DGSE issued a corrigendum, dated 1-10-1997 which was circulated to all concerned. It is the claim of the petitioner that having completed 12 years of service in BPS.17 and above on 21-8-1998, The appellant remained and continues to remain the senior most officer in NTCDP serving in BPS.18 deserving to be promoted as Director in BPS.19 in NTCDP which is the only such post in BPS.19 in NTCDP and in view of the vacant post of Director in NTCDP, he made representation to respondent No,2/Director-General, Directorate-General of Special Education, Ministry of Women Development, Social Welfare and Special Education for his promotion in the next grade as director, whereupon the Establishment Division (as required by the respondent-Ministry) issued NOC for filling the post of Director vide Office Memo. No,32/1/97-RW-IV, dated 16-11-1998. In the meanwhile, the Recruitment Rules of DGSE issued vide Notification No,SRO 1187 (1)/88 had been challenged by one Jehan Khan Niazi, Social Case Worker of DGSE through Writ Petition No,1233 of 1995 which was disposed of by this Court on 27-1-1999 observing that consequent upon the institution of the Constitutional petition, the Ministry concerned took up the matter with the Establishment Division for framing rules so as to provide for channel for promotion for the employees working in the Ministry in various cadres, the said rules having been framed by the Establishment Division are now to be submitted to the FPSC for final approval and all future, promotions in the Department shall be regulated by the rules, thus framed, therefore, the grievance of the petitioner that no rules were in existence making provision for the channel of promotion, was over.
4. The grievance of the appellant is that he is being denied his right to be even considered for promotion by the respondents on the pretext that the Recruitment Rules for various posts in DGSE are under revision in the light of the aforementioned judgment passed by this Court because NTCDP Recruitment Rules are also being amalgamated in the revised consolidated Recruitment Rules, but, on the other hand; according to information of the appellant, the respondents in contradiction of its own position to withhold all promotions till the framing of the revised consolidated Recruitment Rules, have recently sent to the Establishment Division cases of 9 Deputy Directors from DGSE for promotion against 5 vacancies of Directors in DGSE and against one vacancy in NTCDP excluding the name of the petitioner whereas the petitioner is the only candidate available for the post of Director, NTCDP and this vacancy under the existing rules cannot be placed in the strength of DGSE which is entirely a separate institution under the Ministry of Women Development , Social Welfare and Special Education.
5. In this background, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the judgment passed by this Court on 27-1-1999 in Writ Petition No,1233 of 1995 is being misinterpreted by the respondents and the petitioner through his Constitutional Petition No,337 of 2000 sought clarification to the extent that the judgment did not place any bar on' the respondent-Ministry for processing the case of the appellant for promotion to the post of Director in BPS.19 in NTCDP because the appellant is governed by the NTCDP Recruitment Rules, notified under SRO 1194, dated 22-12-1988 which provide for criteria for appointment, promotion, transfer etc. For the employees of NTCDP alone and the learned Single Judge did not properly conceive the case of the appellant as set out in the writ petition. It is also argued that in Writ Petition No,1233 of 1995 instituted by Jehan Khan Niazi, the Recruitment Rules of DGSE issued vide Nnotification No,SRO 1187(1)/88 were challenged which had no nexus with the Recruitment Rules of NTCDP notified vide SRO 1194, dated 22-12-1988 which is totally different set of rules notified to govern the services of employees of NTCDP exclusively and, therefore, the order in the judgment had no effect on the. Appellant's case for promotion and the appellant is being denied, his due promotion illegally because of the misinterpretation of the judgment delivered by this Court in the writ petition mentioned above and directions may, therefore, be issued to the respondents to process the appellant's promotion case accordingly from the due date, without further delay. It is, thus argued that the matter before the learned Single Judge did not relate to the terms and conditions of the appellant's service.
6. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant have no. Force. The entire case of the appellant is that the appellant is eligible to be promoted to the post of Director, NTCDP (BPS.19) in accordance with NTCDP Recruitment Rules notified vide S.R.O. 1194, dated 22-12-1988 and he is being illegally denied his promotion on the pretext that Recruitment Rules for various posts in DGSE are under revision on the basis of aforementioned judgment of this case but the judgment deals only with DGSE Recruitment Rules and has no nexus with NTCDP Recruitment Rules. This is purely a matter relating to the terms and conditions of appellant's service because the grievance of the appellant is that he is not being dealt with, in accordance with S.R.O. 1194, dated 22-12-1988 which provides a criteria for appellant's promotion and it is also the case of the appellant that the respondents are misinterpreting the judgment given by this Court in the aforementioned Writ Petition No,1233 of 1995. If this is so, the appellant can urge both these pleas through an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal and bring it to the notice of the Federal Service Tribunal that the appellant is not being dealt with in accordance with the rules governing the terms and conditions of his service and that the respondents are misinterpreting the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No,1233 of 1995. It may also be mentioned here that it is not- the case of the appellant that through judgment, dated 27-1-1999 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No,1233 of 1995, the terms and conditions of appellant's service have been altered and because of the of the said judgment, NTCDP Recruitment Rules notified under S.R.O. 1194, dated 22-12-1988 have been altered or, extinguished because even then the appellant's writ petition would not be maintainable because that would amount to challenging an earlier order/judgment passed by this Court on 27- 1-1999 in Writ Petition No,1233 of 1995, through a subsequent writ petition which is not permitted in law. In such a situation he would have been asked to challenge the earlier order/judgment, dated 27-1-1999 passed by this Court through a properly constituted petition before a higher forum or to seek its review through a review petition. The writ petition, in any case, would not have been maintainable. But, as mentioned above, it is not the case of the petitioner that above said previous judgment has altered the terms and conditions of his service.
7. The above mentioned shows that the learned Single Judge correctly held that the writ petition was not maintainable. This appeal thus, having no merit is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.