JUDGMENT KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J. -- Petitioner is an employee of respondent-Board and is working as Senior Stenographer. He claims- to be at No. 2 of the Seniority List. According to his assertion, as per. The prescribed line of promotion the petitioner is eligible to be promoted and posted as P.A,, which post is being held by respondent No. 3. It is claimed that respondent No. 3 already a Superintendent cannot legally hold the post of P.A. In addition to the post of Superintendent. It is claimed that petitioner made a representation (Annex. 'L') which has not been decided. Petitioner further claims that he made a representation to Secretary Education, Government of the Punjab also but without any response. Hence, this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution with the prayer that "it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that by accepting the writ petition the action of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in giving two benefits to the respondent No. 3 and denying the right to the petitioner for promotion as S.S.S. After next senior Stenographer as P.A. May kindly be declared as illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction and the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be promoted as S.S.S.^after next Senior Scale Stenographer as P.A."
2. Respondent No. 3 has placed on record the written statement which is also signed by Dr. M.
Mohy-ud-Din Qazi, Advocate, Legal Advisor of respondent-Board. It seems the respondent-Board is adopting the position taken by respondent No. 3. In the written statement the claim of the petitioner is denied; It is asserted that the Board in its meeting held on 9.7.1992, vide Item No. 11 of its proceedings, decided that the seniority of P.A. To Chairman shall stand amalgamated with the general cadre of Superintendents for promotion to higher post/grade. It is claimed that the pattern decided by respondent-Board is being followed by Sargodha, Gujranwala, Multan and Rawalpindi Boards. Maintainability of this writ petition has been objected to on the ground that the Service Rules of the Board are non-statutory and the same is governed by law of master and servant.
Objection of laches is also taken on the ground that the order passed in August, 1992, is sought to.
Be challenged by way of this petition filed in 1998.
3. A Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 7.12.1999, has held, while dismissing Writ Petition No. 23674 of 1996, and some other petitions, that the Service Rules of the Board are not statutory. With due respect I am bound by the view taken by the Division Bench. This petition in the circumstances and following the principle laid down in the case of Anisa Rehman's Vs. PIAC and another (1994 SCM R 2232), is not maintainable.
4. Nevertheless it is not denied that the petitioner's representation (Annex. 'L') has not been decided.
The same is required to be decided, one way or the other in accordance with law. Chairman, respondent No. 1 is, therefore, directed to decide the representation in. Accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner and any other affected party like respondent No. 3. Since it is an old matter, representation may preferably be decided within eight weeks from, today. This petition is disposed of without any order as to costs with the above directions.