1. ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI, J.---By a short order we have disposed of this petition in the following terms: "We had heard the arguments of the learned counsel in the above matter on 10-12-1998 and had proposed to pass the order on 14-12-1998, today we are disposing of this matter by a short order as we propose to give detailed reasons at a subsequent stage.
2. We have found the petitioner fit for the post applied for which is the basis of dispute between the parties.
3. As regards the eligibility of the respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4 as well as the petitioners, since the petitioner has levelled allegations of misconduct as well as fraud, we feel it requires evidence which under Article 199 of the Constitution in this Constitutional petition we cannot advert to. We feel that these allegations required a detailed inquiry for which evidence is to be led.
4. Therefore, we are of the view that the petitioner should approach the concerned departmental authority, the respondent No. l or any other person authorised in this behalf or as may be directed by respondent No. 1, who shall decide the case on merits after giving a chance of hearing to the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 within a period of three months from the date of this order."
5. We intend to record the reasons in support of the above short order. In brief by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of the Court the petitioner has assailed two Notifications dated 17-1.1-1994 and 10-1-1995 whereby the respondent No. l has promoted the respondents Nos.2 to 4 to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers (BS-17) against 5% quota of sub-Engineers in terms of the amended Recruitment Rules of Pak. P.W.D. notified on 22-1-1994 (hereinafter called the "Recruitment Rules".
6. The petitioner claims that he was inducted in the service of the respondent No. l on 24-7-1980 and after passing the Departmental Examination in March, 1989, he was promoted to Selection Grade in (BS-16) and thereafter, he was on study leave from 1-6-1991 to 7-6-1994 and during this period he obtained B.Sc. Engineering Degree in March, 1994 from Fcati University Manila Philippines to qualify to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (BS-17) in terms of the Recruitment Rules. The said Recruitment Rules are as follows: Ministry of Works and Environment and Urban Affairs (Works Division)
7. Islamabad the'22nd January, 1994 SRO 65(I) 94.--In pursuance of sub-rule (2) of rule 3 of Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 the following amendment shall be made in the Recruitment Rules of the PAK.
8. P.W.D. under the Works Division notified vide SRO 897 (1)/84, dated 11th October, 1984: (1)---------------------------- (a)---------------------------- (b)------------------------------
(ii) In the table below rule 3, the existing entries under column (2) against Nos. 8 and 9 shall be substituted as under: Name and Basic PayPerson eligibleCondition of eligibility --Scale of the Post 8.AssistantSub-Engineer/Assistant(1)13 years'
9. Executive EngineerEngineer Civil possessing:servicein (Civil) (BPS-17)BPS-11 and above.
(i) Diploma of Associate(ii) Passing of the Engineer--20%Departmental examination.
(ii) B.E.orB.Sc.Prescribed for Engineering/B. Tech.placement - in (Hops)/AME (Pak)--5%selection grade.
10. 9.AssistantSub-Engineer/Assistant(1)13 years'
11. Executive EngineerEngineer(Civil service, in (Civil) (BPS-17)possessing):BPS-11 and above.
(i) Diploma of Associate (ii) Passing of the Engineer--20%Departmental Examination.
(ii) B.E.orB.Sc.Prescribed for Engineering/B. Tech. (Hons)placement in AMIE (Pak.)--5%Selection Grade.
12. This Notification issued with the concurrence of the Establishment Division vide O.M. No.19-1-1993-R- 5, dated 22nd May, 1993 and of the Federal Public Service Commission vide their Letter No. F.15- 10/93, dated 16th December, 1993 respectively.
13. The grievance of the petitioner is that in July, 1994 he has through proper channel informed the respondent No.1 that he has acquired the basic qualification for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil Pak. P.W.D.) against 5% quota reserved for in-service Sub-Engineers but his such application has been ignored and he was not considered by the respondent No.1. It is further averred by the petitioner that on 25-9-1994, the petitioner made a representation to the Director- General Pak. P.W.D., Islamabad, through proper channel, wherein it has been specifically requested by him that he is one of the candidates who were eligible for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) against 5 % quota and that the proposed list of the candidates for the post of- Assistant Executive Engineer contains names of Sub-Engineers .who did not avail the study leave for getting higher qualification during the service and, they are guilty of misconduct, if they had taken admission in full time study course without permission of the department, in terms of Government Servants (Conduct) Rules,-1964.
14. The petitioner further averred that the respondent No. l mala fidely failed to take action on his representations dated 26-7-1994 and 25-9-1994 and promoted respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in spite of the facts that the said respondents did not possess valid and lawfully acquired degree of B.
15. Tech. (Hons.) for claiming their suitability for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer in terms of the Recruitment Rules. The petitioner made specific allegation against respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4 in para. 9 of the petition to show that they were not eligible for promotion and that their promotion is illegal and against the rules. In para. 9 to the petition the petitioner averred as follows:
(i) Respondent No.2 Shabbir Hussain claims to have obtained B. Tech. (Hon.) degree in the year 1994 from Government College of Technology, Karachi affiliated to N.E.D. Engineering University. He remained posted at Lahore till the time of his promotion in November, 1994. He had not taken study leave or any other leaves to persue the course of study at Government College of Technology, Karachi.
(ii) Respondent No.3 Iftikhar Ahmed passed B. Tech. (Hon.) from S. Sindh University, Hyderabad in 1988 while he was posted at Karachi. He too did not take study leave or any other leave to attend classes in Hyderabad.
(iii) Respondent No.4 Muhammad Sabeeh Sabir also obtains his B. Tech. (Hons.) degree without taking study leave or any other leave.
(iv) It is matter of record that the said respondents Nos.2, 3, and 4 remained on duty throughout and attended their official assignments both on sites and in their respective offices. These facts cannot be controverted.
(v) It will be appreciated that the respondent No.2 while physically present and attending to the official duties at Lahore could not possibly be attending classes at Karachi, and respondent No.3 while posted at Karachi could not possibly be attending classes at Hyderabad. Similarly, respondent No.4 could not simultaneously be attending classes and also be present on duty. One person can be present only at one place at a time.
16. Respondent No. l filed parawise comments along with a report respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4 have also filed counter-affidavits to the petition. The petitioner in reply to the parawise comments filed counter-affidavit and also affidavit-in-rejoinder to the counter-affidavits filed by respondents Nos.
17. 2, 3 and 4.
18. The main contention of the respondents is that the petition is not maintainable in view of the bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution. According to them the dispute in these proceedings relates to the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioner and respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4.
19. However, as regards the allegation contained in para. 9 of the petition quoted above it has not been denied that respondent No.2 remained posted at Lahore from 1990 to 1994 and during this period he obtained a degree from Government College of Technology, Karachi and respondent No.2 obtained a degree from Hyderabad in 1988-89 though he was posted in Karachi and the respondent No.4 had also been attending his office when he was persuing a course of study leading to B. Tech. (Hons.) degree without obtaining the permission for the study. Respondents Nos.
20. 2, 3 and 4 content that at different dates during their service they had made request to the concerned authorities for permission to take admission in B. Tech. (Hon.) course and were also on leave from time to time. We would advert to this controversy later, first we like to take up the issue of maintainability of the petition.
21. It is contended by Mr. Nazar Akbar, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the controversy before this honorable Court is that the private respondent either don't have the basic qualification or they have acquired the said basic academic qualification of a degree of 13. Tech. (Hon.) illegally by violating the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964 for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer in terms of the Recruitment Rules. It is further averred that the respondent No.1 has promoted them by overlooking the fact that the said respondents do not fulfil the basic criteria for such promotion.
22. It is vehemently contended by him that once respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 having been promoted by the notification impugned and the petitioner is aggrieved by such decision of the respondent No. l he has no remedy against the said decision even by way of representation and the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal against an order of the promotion of a person or his fitness to hold a particular post is barred in terms of clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
23. He has also referred to the proviso to subsection (2) of section 22 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 which creates a bar even to a representation in matter relating to the determination of fitness of a person to hold a particular post or to be promoted to higher post. The section 4(1) of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and section 22(2) of Civil Servants Act, 1973 read as follows:
4. Appeals to Tribunals.--(1) Any civil servant aggrieved by any final order, whether original or appellate, made by a departmental authority in respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service may, within thirty days of the communications of such order to him or within six months of the establishment of the appropriate Tribunal whichever is later, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal.
24. (a)................................................................
(b) 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 to or hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher post or grade, and
(c) .................................................................
25. 22.--(2) Where no provision for appeal or review exists under the rules in respect of any order or class of orders, a civil servant aggrieved by any such order may, within thirty days of the communication to him of such order, make; a representation against it to the authority next above the authority which made the order: Provided that no representation shall lie on matters relating to the determination of fitness of a person to hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher post or grade.
26. In support of the contention the counsel for the petitioner has relied on the law laid down in PLD 1978 Karachi 703, Mutaqui Hussain Razvi v. Government of Sindh and others PLD 1980 Quetta 58, Mujeebullah Ejaz v. Director-General, Telephone and Telegraphs Department and 2 others, PLD 1994 Supreme Court 539, Muhammad Anis and others v. Abdul Haseeb and others and recent a judgment of this honourable Court reported in 1998 PLC (C.S.) 1175, Syed Afzal Muhammad Farooq v. Secretary Establishment Government of Pakistan and 2 others.
27. Mr. Farough Naseem, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 candidly admits that under section 4(1) (b) of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in matters concerning "fitness" of a person to be appointed to a particular post or to be promoted to higher post or grade is barred. However, he emphatically argues that the case of the petitioner is based on the Recruitment Rules which prescribe the eligibility of a person and the condition of eligibility to be promoted on the basis of qualification and duration of service. According to the learned counsel the Recruitment Rules dated 22-1-1994 provides criteria in terms of qualification and duration of service for promotion, which is not "Fitness"-but term of eligibility which is condition of service. The "Fitness" is based upon a subjective assessment touching upon question as to whether a particular person is "fit" or not for a particular post.
28. In support of his contention, the teamed counsel has also relied on the cases reported in PLD 1994 Supreme Court 539 and 1991 SCMR 1121 and 1998 PLC (C.S.) 1175.
29. The learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 4 has also referred to PLD 1994 Supreme Court 539 in support of his contention that this honourable Court has no jurisdiction in this matter as according to him the question of eligibility for being considered for promotion to the higher post is a matter which lies within the jurisdiction of Federal Service Tribunal.
30. We have considered the submissions made before us by learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record anti the case-law placed before us.
31. There is no cavil to the proposition that in the matter of eligibility which admittedly is a term of service, jurisdiction of Service Tribunal is not barred. However, every civil servant having minimum qualification prescribed for promotion to higher post has a vested right to be considered for promotion. It being so in cases where a civil servant is promoted and he does not possess the required qualification as against a person having the required qualification who is left out and is not considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee, the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal is ousted. According to the petitioner, respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4 were not having requisite qualification for promotion while the petitioner has the qualification required and yet in spite of having the requisite eligibility he was not considered by the respondent No. 1, In this view of the case at hand, the grievance of the petitioner seems to be barred under section 4(1) (b) of Service Tribunals Act read with section 22(2) of the Civil Servants Act. It, therefore, follows that the term eligibility is not always a term of service, which can only be challenged before the Service Tribunal.
32. In the case referred by the learned counsel for the parties before us a consistent view of the superior Court is that the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal stands excluded where promotion or otherwise fitness of a person having requisite eligibility has rightly been selected or not is under dispute. In such-like matter the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is not barred.
33. In the case of Mushtaq Hussain Rizvi v. Province of Sindh and others PLD 1978 Karachi 703 Z.A.
34. Channa, J. on the question of jurisdiction in service matters made the' following observation: ''I am accordingly of the humble view that despite the enactment of the Civil Servants Act specifically providing how promotion is to be made to the higher posts and grades, a claim to promotion is not a vested right and cannot be enforced through a civil suit or even by invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of the superior Courts. It may be pointed out that mere seniority, even in the case of a non-selection post, will not entitle a person to promotion, as even in such cases the basis of promotion is seniority- cum-fitness, and fitness can appropriately be determined only by the competent Administrative Authority. However, the right to be considered for promotion where a person is eligible for promotion is a vested right and if the eligible person is not considered for promotion, or a person not otherwise qualified under the rules is promoted illegally or against the rules, in such cases the aggrieved person can enforce his right to be considered for promotion of object to the person not qualified for promotion being promoted, though a civil suit or by invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of the superior Courts, since this matter is not within the purview of the Service Tribunal.
35. Mujeebullah Ejaz v. Director-General, Telephones and Telegraphs Department and 2 other PLD 1980 Quetta 58.
36. In this case Full Bench was constituted to examine the question whether Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan is complete bar in respect of the case in which a Government servant seeks relief under Article 199 of the Constitution in relation to the terms and conditions of service. In deciding this issues the Full Bench was of the view: "As a result of the above discussion the conclusion is that the bar imposed by Article 212 of the Constitution is not total but is limited to such sphere within which the relevant laws namely the Service Tribunals Act and the Civil Servants Act occupy the field."
37. Muhammad Anis and others v. Abdul Haseeb PLD 1994 Supreme Courts page 539.
38. In this case Ajmal Mian, J., has elaborately dealt with the terms "Fitness" and "Eligible" in the light of legal. Thesaurus and -other legal Dictionary and has made the following observations: "We are also of the view that the question of eligibility is different from the question of fitness.
39. Indeed from the definitions of the words 'eligible' and 'fit' given in the above Dictionaries, it appears at the meanings of above two words are interchangeable and someone they carry the same meanings but at the 'same time they have difference meanings. Eves in the above legal Thesaurus the word elgible' has been defined as 'fit' for appointment, fit for election fit for selection, fit to be chosen legally qualified and suitable whereas Balck'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' caries 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 qualification 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 qualification 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.
40. We may point out that the question of eligibility and fitness have been treated differently by the law-makers in the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and in the Act. In section 9 of the former Act, as pointed out hereinabove, a right has been conferred on a civil servant to be considered for promotion if he is eligible on account of the fact that he possesses prescribed minimum qualification but has no vested right to be promoted. In contrast to above section 9 of the above Act, the law-makers in proviso (b) to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Act have not used the word 'eligible' but have employed the word 'fitness or otherwise to be appointed to a higher post or cadre. In other words the question eligibility, which is a term of service by virtue of above subsection (1) of section 9 of the Civil Servants Act 1973, has not been excluded from the purview of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal but the question, whether a person having requisite eligibility has been rightly selected or not selected on account of fitness or otherwise for appointment to hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher post or grades, has been excluded."
41. In the passage from the judgment quoted above we find that the distinction has been made in terms "eligible" and "fitness" for the purposes of the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal in the light 'of section 9 of Civil Servants Act, 1973 and section 4(1)(b) of Service Tribunals Act. It is "requisite qualification" which is basic criteria for examining the, proposition that a person has rightly been selected or not selected on account of fitness or otherwise for promotion to hold a particular post or to be promoted to higher post of grade, has been excluded from the purview of the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal.
42. In the case at hand the petitioner has sought a declaration that he possesses the requisite qualification and, therefore, being eligible for promotion has right to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) on account of having acquired the minimum qualification by him to -fit in the criteria of promotion in terms of the Recruitment Rules. It has also been contended that respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4 were not eligible to be considered for promotion as they were either lacking in minimum qualification prescribed or there are serious doubts in the genuineness of their B. Tech. (Hons.) degrees or otherwise invalid and improper and yet these degrees are the basis for their promotion to the post of Assistant Execution Engineer (Civil). As such. the case in hand is not one of those 'where eligibility directly relates to the terms and conditions of service involved. It is required eligibility which is being challenged to seek relief of declaration for which since the petitioner could not approach the Service Tribunal he has rightly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. The petitioner has also alleged mala fide which are apparent inasmuch as his two representations dated 26-7-1994 and 25-9-1994 has not been attended to by the respondent No. 1 in spite of lapse of several years. In parawise comments the department admits of having received his representation but has not referred to any action having been taken on the said representation. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the petition is maintainable and we declare that we have found the petitioner fit to be considered for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, Pak. P.W.D.
43. Having dilated upon question of maintainability raised by the parties before us now we would like to take up the controversy regarding the implication of the academic. qualification of respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 being invalid and improper to 'exclude them even from consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive. Engineer in the light of the allegation of the petitioner in para 9 of the petition.
44. Respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4 have placed before us copies of the requisite degree of B. Tech. (Hons.)
45. Engineering, to fit in the criteria for promotion in terms of the Recruitment Rules.
46. We have enquired from the learned counsel for the petitioner that which of the Statutory Rules have been violated by the respondent Nos.2. 3, and 4 in acquiring their academic qualification.
47. The learned counsel has referred to the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and that ESTACODE (Civil Establishment Code) of which Chapter 5 deals with conduct and discipline and Chapter 7 deals with leave Rules. He draws our attention to the following Rules from Chapters 5 and 7 of ESTACODE (Chapter V, Conduct and Discipline).
48. Prosecution of Studies by Government Servants in the Educational Institutions Sl. No.34.
49. A reference invited to the Establishment Division O.M. No.4/24/59-IV; dated the 3rd May, 1960 (not reproduced) and it is stated that on further consideration it has been decided that:--
(1) Government servants intending to take up a course of study at educationist institution should be required to take prior permission of the Head of the Department.
(2) No such permission should be granted unless the Head of the Department is satisfied that the prosecution of, studies will not interfere with the Government servants' official duties. (Chapter VII, Leave)
50. Bar against Leaving Place of Duty without wanting for Sanction of Leave (S1.No.11)
51. It has been observed that the civil servants applying for grant of leave, leave their offices/places of duty without waiting for actual sanction of the leave applied for. The attention of Ministries/Divisions is invited to F.R. 67 wherein it is clearly stated that leave cannot be claimed as of right. Thus an application for leave should not be anticipated as grant of leave. It should, therefore, be brought home to the civil servants serving under the control of Ministries/Division that if they apply for grant of leave, they must wait for sanction of leave and should not leave the place of their duty before the leave applied for is actually granted by the competent authority. Non- compliance of these instructions might warrant action on account of misconduct under the relevant Rules."
52. He has also referred to the definitions of "misconduct" as given in section 2 of the Government Servants (E & D) Rules, 1973 and the punishment provided for violation of such rules prescribed in section 4 of the said Rules. These Rules are:
2. Definitions.--In those Rules, unless the context otherwise requires:--- (1)---------------------------------------------------- (2)----------------------------------------------------- (3)--------------------------------------------------
(4) "Misconduct" means conduct prejudicial to good order or service discipline Sr. contrary to Government servants (Conduct) Rules, 1961 or unbecoming of an officer and, a gentleman and includes any act on the part of a Government servant to bring or attempt to bring political or other outside influence directly or indirectly bear on the Government or any Government officer in respect of any matter relating to the appointment, promotion, transfer, punishment, retirement or other conditions of service of a Government servant, and 4 Penalties:--(1) The following are the minor and major penalties namely:
(a) Minor penalties:
(i) Censure.
(ii) Withholding, for a specific period, promotion or increment, quota/otherwise than for unfitness for promotion or financial advancement in accordance with the rules or orders pertaining to the service or post.
53. The respondents have contended they were pursuing their course of Studies for acquiring B. Tech.
54. (lions.) degrees from their respective Colleges and University under intimation to their Department alongwith the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 there are few applications one of which has a reference to the request for permission to pursue the study. Similarly the respondent No.4 has filed certain documents which include no objections on his application dated 27-9-1981 from Chief Engineer (South) Pak. P.W.D., Karachi and the respondent No.3 among other documents has also filed an application with a similar no objection from the Chief Engineer (South), Karachi. It has also been contended by respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 that their promotion was mostly owing to the fact that they all were senior to the petitioner.
55. Respondent No. l in parawise comments has taken the same stand that respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were senior to the petitioner and on the basis of the degree provided by them irrespective of the fact that how and in that manner they have acquired degree, they were found fit for promotion as they were senior, too, and accordingly were promoted.
56. The counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on the letter of Chief Administrative Officer, Pak.
57. P.W.D. dated 8-1-1995 and brief about sub-engineer attached to it and a copy which was filed by the petitioner along with the affidavit-in-rejoinder. According to this letter the record . of respondent No. l shows that neither of the respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were given permission for study nor they have even applied for such permission. The same documents, however, clearly refer to the petitioner that according to the record of respondent No. I the petitioner was granted Ex- Pakistan study leave and has produced a degree certificate of B.Sc. (Civil) Engineer). However, according to the official record respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have not provided the degrees to respondent No which they have produced before us.
58. As regards the claim of seniority of respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 we find that admittedly the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were senior to the petitioner. However, respondent No.4 as per report filed alongwith the parawise comments by the respondent No. l was inducted in the service on 4-1-1981.
59. There is no. dispute that the petitioner was inducted in the service on 24-7-1980. Therefore the petitioner as per records produced before us was senior to respondent No.4.
60. The counsel for the respondent No.4 when confronted with this situation has contended that respondent -No.4 has fulfilled conditions of eligibility for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer in the year when the petitioner had not obtained the B.Sc. Engineer degree from Manila University and has not been eligible for promotion at that time. We do not find force in his contention. Seniority on the basis of initial appointment in the service' could not be changed or presumed, to have been changed on the basis of acquiring a degree or any other qualification prior to time to the colleague who otherwise is senior in. service. As long as a civil servant continues to hold a particular post/cadre his seniority remains intact in the same post, or cadre over his colleagues. Be as it may in any case seniority is a question of fact.
61. The issue of seniority of the petitioner and the respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 inter se and the question of study leave having been obtained or not by the respondents and the validity of their degrees are all issues of facts which requires detailed inquiry and evidence is to be led. We cannot go into this factual controversy in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution.
62. We, however, find that had this factual controversy on being raised by the petitioners through his representation dated 25-9-1994 been resolved in time, the petitioner might have not invoked the Constitution jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution `of Pakistan. Respondent No. 1, the departmental authority concerned has failed to take action on the representation of the petitioner which is pending before Departmental Authority since 1994 and is the root cause of the controversy between the parties. We, therefore, by short order have held that petitioner may approach the concerned authority, respondent No. l or any other person authorised in this behalf or as may be directed by respondent No. l who shall decide the case on merit after given a chance for hearing to the petitioner and the respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4 within period of 3 months from the dates of this order. The petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to- costs.