' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 11-9- 2000 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore passed in Appeal No,259 of 1995 whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The facts leading 'to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner was recruited as A.S.-I. In the Police Department on 31-7-1992 and got confirmed on 1-8-1995. He was M.A.,LL.B., and Athlete, Body Builder and Weight Lifter. He represented the country in various National and International events.
He was awarded Commendation Certificates and cash awards of Rs,2,000. The petitioner was due for the promotion as S.-I. But was ignored by the department and respondents Nos.3 to 6 his batch mates were promoted as Inspector on 3-4-1984. He made representations to respondent No 1-I.-G.
Police on 25-1-1992 and 1-10-1992 respectively but the same were not attended to and were rejected on 1-3-1995. According to him the minor punishments and adverse remarks in the A.C.Rs, for the year 1975-76 do not create bar for his promotion. Feeling dissatisfied with the findings, he preferred Appeal No,259 of 1995 before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore which too was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 30-6,2000, hence this petition.
3. Mr. Muhammad Aslam Uns, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner mainly contended that the impugned order denying promotion to the petitioner is not only illegal but is arbitrary and violative of the Constitution. The adverse remarks noted in the A.C.Rs,, for the years 1975-76 are not adverse in nature but are presumptive assertion tampered with personal motive in order to impede the petitioner's promotion. According to him the punishments awarded to the petitioner being minor penalty cannot stand in the way of promotion who otherwise was entitled to the same. He lastly argued that the petitioner on the contrary possessed excellence performance in the Inter Range Body Building and Weight Lifting Championship held in Lahore in .1987 and cash award of Rs,2,000 d also Class-I Commendation Certificate by respondent No, 1 . The respondents Nos.2 to 6 and the petitioner were admitted to. List 'F' n 8-3-1984, the petitioner was left behind whereas respondents were promoted as Inspector on 3-4-1984. Similarly respondents Nos.7 to 11 who joined service much later than petitioner were also admitted to list 'F' and were promoted as S.-I. And the petitioner was neglected malafidely and thus, has been discriminated in the matter of promotion to the higher ranks.
4. The comments advanced by the respondents show the following adverse remarks and punishments mentioned in his record -- "ADVERSE REMARKS ' 1975 If he is given guidance by the seniors, he can prove useful.
' 1976 He is a young officer but not knowledgeable as young officer would be. He is to be guided.
' 1979 He is basically sportsman and not known police working. His two years' service was forfeited, as a result of fault investigation in case F.I.R. No,115 of 1979, Police Station Sargodha for discharging 'the accused in case of theft of trees.
' 1980 Average A.S.I.
' He was transferred on complaint of corruption. The period of the reporting officer was less man three months.
' 1981 Officer of average capability.
' PUNISHMENTS
(1) Censure in 1977.
(2) Forfeiture of two years' service in 1979.
(3) Censure in 1982.
(4) Forfeiture of one year's service in 1983."
5. We have given anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the petitioner's counsel and find from the record that the petitioner had adverse entries in his A.C.Rs, pertaining to the years 1975-76, 1979-80 and 1982. These adverse' entries were never expunged and contained remarks of very serious nature. Irrespective of the above, the petitioner was also awarded punishments of Censure 1977; forfeiture of two years' service in 1979; Censure in 1.982 and forfeiture of one year's service in 1983. Admittedly the promotion is made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness and the rules regarding grant of pro forma promotion do not allow persons with the chequered record of service to claim promotion as of right. The petitioner did not raise the pleas before the Service Tribunal that he was not communicated adverse remarks, as such, he cannot agitate the same at this stage. No civil servant has a claim to ask for promotion as of right and the giving or refusal of promotion is a matter within exclusive discretionary domain of the executive authorities conferred in the matter. In the case of Secretary Government of Sindh Education Department and others v. Riyazul Hassan Zaidi and another reported in (1986 SCM R 64) this Court has observed in para. 7 at page 1192 as follows:-- "7. That a civil servant has no vested right to promotion and prospects of promotion cannot be included in conditions of service, was a settled proposition of law even before the enforcement of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. However, the provisions of section 9 of the said Act clearly postulate that promotion to a selection post can be made on the basis of selection on merit and to a fitness.
On the plain reading of the section the criteria for making promotion to the higher grade implies a decision by the competent authority according to the individual judgment of such authority. The underlying principle seems to be that seniority alone is not the determining factor for judging the suitability or fitness of civil servant for discharging the functions attaching to a post in the higher grade."
6. We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the Punjab Service Tribunal which are accordingly maintained. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of force is dismissed an leave to appeal is refused. .