ORDER CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.-- We intend to dispose of ICAs No. 273, 274 & 275 of 2000 by one consolidated order having similar facts and law as the' aforesaid ICAs have been filed against the same impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 4.4.2000 whereby the Writ Petition Nos. 2206, 2207 and 2208 of 2000, filed by the appellants challenging the vires of order dated 25.1.2000 passed by Senior Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue on the representations of the private respondents, were dismissed.
2. Brief facts out of which these appeals arise are that in order to fill up four vacancies of S' Class Naib Tehsildars from quota of 12% by promotion through selection in the Lahore Division; the Commissioner, Lahore Division invited nomination rolls of eligible officials of the Board of Revenue, attached Departments of the Revenue Department and offices of Deputy Commissioners in Lahore Division. On receipt of nomination rolls, of the aforesaid officials, the matter, was placed before the Divisional Selection/Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 27.5.1999 and the Committee recommended selection of the appellants for promotion of the said post along with Ghulam Nabi Shahid. On the basis of the aforesaid recommendations of the said Selection Committee on 28.5.1999 regarding selection of the appellants and another as. B Class Naib Tehsildar, orders were1 issued by the -Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore. The respondents No. 2 to 6 being candidates for the said posts were ignored by the DPC, they filed representations under section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 before the -Senior Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue/Secretary to the Government of Punjab Revenue Department who accepted the same vide order dated 25.1.2000 and remanded the matter back to the commissioner for fresh decision.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the representation of private respondents before the. Senior Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue was not competent, as the appellants were recruited directly and he relied upon the following reportedJudgments:-
(i) 1987 PSC 320, Faqir Muhammad Vs. Secretary to Government of Agriculture Department and others.
(ii) KLR 1992 .(L&S) 239.
The learned counsel has. Further argued that the learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment reported as Lal and others Vs'. Commissioner, Lahore Division and others (1984 SCMR 623) which is distinguishable on the facts and law as in the cited case, matter of promotion was in question whereas in the present case, appellants were initially appointed, therefore, no representation was competent relating to determination of fitness of person to hold a particular post or to be promoted; further argued that the learned Single Judge erred in law to hold that the appellants have a right to i.e an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The appellants have got no right to i.e appeal before the Service Tribunal by virtue of Section 4 Proviso 1, as the matter relates to the determination of fitness of a person to hold a particular post, hence, appeal before Service Tribunal is specifically barred by aforesaid proviso. Further argued that the action of the respondents is hit by Article 25 of the Constitution and the law laid down by Hon'ble * Supreme Court of Pakistan in I.A. Sherwani's case 1991- SCMR 1041; further argued that the learned Single Judge erred in law to consider the appellants were promoted but in fact appellants were appointed directly, therefore, question of terms and conditions of service of the appellants being civil servants does not arise 'as the appellants are not civil servants, therefore, they have only remedy to' challenge the vires of the order dated 25.1.2000 in constitutional jurisdiction as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as Ahmad Salman Naris Vs, Nadeem and 5 others (PLD 1997 SC 382). The learned Single Judge was not justified to dismiss the constitutional petitions of the appellants in view of the bar by Article 212 of the Constitution- The judgment of the learned Single Judge is in violation of the law judgments reported as:-
(1) Rana Muhammad Asif Vs. The Secretary to Govt, of Punjab, etc. (1994- PLC (CS) 1331)'
(2) Muhammad Anis and others Vs. Abdul huseeb and others (PLD 1994 SC 539).
(3) Muhammad Nasir Khan Vs. The District and Sessions Judge etc. (PLJ 1997 Lah. 1448 (DB).
(4) Iqbal Ahmad Khan Vi. The Commissioner D.I. Khan and others (1996 PLC (CS) 212).
(5) S. Irshad-ur-Rehman's Vi. Government of Pakistan through Chairman, etc. (1993 PLC (CS) 39).
(6) Ashfaq Ahmed Qureshi Vi. Province of Punjab, etc. (1992 PLC (CS) 898).
(7) Muhammad Yar Buttar and 4 others Vs. Board of Governors (1999 SGMR 819).
(8) Abid Mahmood Vi. Government of Pakistan and 241 others (1996 PLC (CS) 1061).
Further argued that the action of the respondents is in violation of the Punjab Revenue Department (Revenue, Administration, Post) Rules, 1990.
4. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record ourselves, It is better and appropriate to reproduce the facts in chronological order to see whether ICAs are maintainable by virtue of Proviso of Section 3(2) of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 or not.
(i) Nomination rolls were invited by Competent authority to fill four vacancies of B-Glass Naib Tehsildars in Lahore Division.
(ii) Nomination rolls were .Received and placed before the Divisional Selection/Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 27.5.1999.
(i.e) Selection Committee/Promotion Committee recommended the appellants along with Ghulam Nabi Shahid.
(iv) Selection/Promotion letter was issued by the Commissioner on 28.5.1999 (Annex: B).
The respondents No. 2 to 6 filed representations before the Senior Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue who accepted the-same vide order dated 25,1.2000.
In-order to determine whether the private respondents were justified to i.e the representation before the Senior Member Board of Revenue, it is better and appropriate to reproduce relevant rules on the basis T>f which appellants were selected for the post of B-Class Naib Tehsildar; Amended up to 1992.
(i) 50% initial recruitment.
(ii) 38% by promotion of seniority cum fitness basis from amongst Kanugos in the Division with at least three years as such.
(i.e) 12% by promotion through selection on merit from amongst subordinates service as under:- Assistant, Stenographers and Senior Clerks of Revenue Department in the Division who have three years experience as such.
The case of the appellants and private respondents falls under category No. (i.e) in which the word promotion has been mentioned by competent authority which clearly reveals that matter relates to the terms and conditions of Service of the appellants and respondents, therefore, the private respondents were well within their right to i.e representation under section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servant Act, 1974 as law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lal and others' case (1984 SCMR 623) before the Senior Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue.
In case the aforesaid facts are put in juxtaposition, then it is clear that these appeals are not maintainable by virtue of Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. To hold so, we are fortified by the following reported judgments Muhammad Haroon Vs. District Food Controller (1980 SCMR Page 720), Mst. Karim Bibi and others Vs. Hussain Bux and another (PLJ 1984 SC 326) and Muhammad Abdullah Vs. Deputy Settlement Commissioner Central /, Lahore (PLD 1985 -SC 107); hence, these ICAs are not maintainable and the same are hereby dismissed in limine.