' ROSHAN ALI MANGI (MEMBER).---Appellant Syed Asad Ali Shah, a confirmed Assistant in the Anti- Narcotics Force, Rawalpindi, was suspended from 25-8-1991 to 20-12-1996. During the period of suspension, he was dismissed from the service. However, on filing his Appeal No,292-R of 1995 in the Federal Service Tribunal against his dismissal, he was reinstated in the service w,e,f, 25-8-1991. In the- meantime, fresh disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant, in the light of the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal.
2. In the said inquiry, the appellant was exonerated from the alleged charges and re-instated into service and paid all back benefits.
3. Now the grievance of the appellant is that during the period he remained suspended, respondents Nos.3 to 5, who were Army Personnel, have been appointed against the posts of Superintendents (B-16), as such have blocked the appellant's chances of promotion to B-16. These posts are to be tilled 100% by promotion as per S.R.O., dated 7th April, 1988. The appellant, therefore, challenged respondents Nos.3 to 5's appointment against those posts, but no response was made.
Hence he has come up with the present appeal after passing the period of 90 days, before the Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel Raja Muhammad Asghar Khan, appeared on behalf of the appellant. It was argued that the appointments of the respondents were void ab initio since these posts were 100% promotion posts against which the respondents Nos.3 to 5 cannot be appointed. It was pleaded that the appellant is at Serial No,2 of the Seniority List of the Assistants (B-11) to (B-15) and fulfilled all the requirements for promotion to B-16. Therefore, he needs to be considered for promotion to B-16 against which the respondents Nos.3 to 5 have been appointed/adjusted. As these posts are 100% promotion posts hence no other person can be posted against these posts. It is further pleaded that the appellant also fulfilled all conditions required for promotion even prior to his suspension.
5. With these submissions, it has been prayed that the impugned order, dated 4-9-1996 whereby the respondents Nos.3 to 5 have been appointed as Superintendents (B-16), be set aside and the appellant be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent (B-16).
6. Although the respondents have not filed their comments, nevertheless the representatives of the respondents departments appeared and brought to the notice of the Bench that those who have been accommodated against the posts of Superintendents, came from the Surplus Pool and they have been accommodated against equivalent posts. Since it was the decision of the Government to absorb the persons on surplus pool, so no illegality has been committed.
7. We have heard the parties and have given full thoughts to the matter. After giving consideration to the matter, we have come to the conclusion that the Government has the power to accommodate the persons who are already on surplus pool against equivalent posts. As such the respondent department has not committed any legal infirmity. Even otherwise, neither a fresh appointment has been made nor has his junior been promoted against the relevant posts to give him the cause to come up with this appeal.
8. For the foregoing reason, the appeal having no substance is dismissed with no order as to costs.
9. Parties be informed.