1. ' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C.J.---Petitioner, Zaheer-ul-Hassan Jarchavi, who is the Principal of Government Superior Science College, Khairpur, has impugned two Notifications, viz. Notification No,SO(E-III)1-28 (MISC)/97, dated 7th May, 1997, of Government of Sindh, Education Department, whereby Mr. Mehmood Ali Rizvi, Professor of Urdu, was posted to look after the charge of the post of Director College Education, Hyderabad, and the Notification No,SOI (S&GAD)-2-1-1997, dated 14th May, 1997, of Services and General Administration Department, posting Dr. Aurangzeb Shaikh, Professor of Chemistry, as the Director, College Education, Sukkur against existing vacancy, till further orders.
2. ' The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that initially he had on 5-11-1963 joined the Education Department, Government of Sindh, as Lecturer of Urdu on regular basis, having been selected by the then West Pakistan Public Service Commission. He served at various places and was promoted as Professor in B.P.S.20. According to him, his case was under consideration for posting him as Director, College Education, but instead the abovenamed two Professors were appointed as such through the Notifications, which he has impugned.
3. ' Under clause (b) of section 4 of Sindh Civil Service Tribunals Act, 1973, no appeal shall lie to a tribunal against an order or decision of a departmental authority determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed or to hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher post or grade.
4. ' The only point involved in this petition is whether the petitioner could claim as a matter of right, to be posted as Director, College Education of Hyderabad or Sukkur Division.
5. ' It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that above posts have been filled in by posting Junior Professors in utter disregard and violation of principles of merit and seniority of the Professors. Also, it is urged that posting of Mr. Mehmood Ali Rizvi at Hyderabad and of Mr. Aurangzeb Shaikh at Sukkur in said capacity is contrary to the rules and established practice and, .In all fairness, the petitioner should have been posted against either of the above two posts.
6. ' The question of determining the fitness or to hold a particular post is within the sole discretion of concerned competent .Authority and neither Court, nor Tribunal has any jurisdiction for dilating upon such issue. In the case reported as Mian Abdul Malik v. Dr. Sabir Zameer Siddiqui and 4 others, 1991 SCM R 1129, the following was observed:-- "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 evaluation on the basis of the objective criteria where substitution for an opinion of the competent Authority is not possible by that of the Tribunal or a Court. It is in this background that the question of fitness or suitability for that the question of fitness or suitability of 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. "
7. ' The above point was also examined in the case reported as Muhammad Anis and others v. Abdul Haseeb and others PLD 1994 SC 539. In this case, having taken into consideration the above reported case, subsection (1) of section 9 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and the cases reported as Iqan Ahmed Khurram v. Government of Pakistan and others, PLD 1980 SC 153 (relevant page 159); Muttaqi Hussain Rizvi v. Province of Sindh and another PLD 1978 Kar. 703 and the definition of words, "eligible" and "fit", as given in the Legal Thesaurus Regular Edn. By William C. Burton; Black's Law Dictionary, and Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, the following was observed by the Supreme Court:-- "We are also of the view that the question of eligibility is different from the question of fitness.
8. Indeed, from the definitions of the words 'eligible' and 'fit' given in the above dictionaries, it appears that the meanings of above two words are interchangeable and some time they early the same meanings but at the same time they have different meanings. Even in the above Legal Thesaurus the word 'eligible' has been defined as 'fit' for appointment, fit for election, for selection, fit to be chosen, legally qualified and suitable. Whereas Black's Law Dictionary defines the word 'eligible' inter alia as qualified to be elected and legally qualified to serve. It may again be pointed out that the Stroud's Judicial Dictionary has highlighted that the word 'eligible' carries two different meanings namely legally qualified or fit to be chosen. The question whether a person is legally qualified for appointment or promotion to a particular post and grade is relatable to the factum, whether he possesses the requisite qualifications for consideration, whereas the question of fitness pertains to the competency of the person concerned to be decided by the competent Authority, for example, under Article 193(2) of the Constitution, the qualifications for being considered for appointment as a High Court Judge have been given. It does not mean that the persons who possess the said qualification are fit for appointment as Judges of the High Courts. The question of fitness of their being appointed is to be determined by the functionaries mentioned therein. In other words a person may be eligible for consideration for a particular post, but may not be fit to be appointed."
9. Since the question of fitness is a subjective evaluation on the basis of objective criteria it is only for the relevant authority to determine as to where a person is to be posted. It is not a vested right of any person to claim posting against a particular post. He can be posted against any post of same grade. For filling in the post in question seniority alone is not enough. Personal characteristics may be a dominating factor for such posting. Besides, in the given circumstances, the issue of posting is not juticiable.
10. ' The petition is not maintainable and is dismissed in limine.