' MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, J.---This appeal by way of leave of the Court, has been directed against the judgment passed by the Service Tribunal on 10-10-2000, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant herein was dismissed and the Notification dated 4-3-2000, on the basis of which respondent No,6 was promoted, was upheld.
2. The necessary facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that a post of Director B-19 in the functional unit of technical of the Animal Husbandry Department was to be filled in view of provisions of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Animal Husbandry Service Rules, 1992. In accordance with the aforesaid rules the officers holding the post of Deputy Director Animal Husbandry/Poultry/Livestock/Disease Investigation Officer B-18 were to be promoted on the basis of selection on merit. The appellant was holding the post Livestock Officer B-18 as is evident from Notification dated 25-8-1997 and he was promoted on the said post w,e,f, 8-3-1992, whereas respondents No,6 was appointed directly to the post of Poultry Development Officer B-18. The post was advertised vide advertisement dated 30-8-1993 and respondent No,6 was appointed by Public Service Commission vide its handout Annexure "PD/ " and the letter of appointment in favour of the said respondent was issued on 16-2-1994. Respondent No,6 was firstly promoted vide the Notification dated 13-12-1998 on current charge bases to the post of Director Livestock. The appellant filed an appeal against the said Notification on 1-1-1999. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal respondent No,6 was promoted to the post of Director Livestock on substantive basis upon the recommendations of Selection Board w,e,f, 9-2-2000 vide Notification dated 4-3- 2000.
3. The appellant filed .An appeal against the said notification before the Service Tribunal on 9-5- 2000. The Service Tribunal vide its judgment dated 10-10-2000 observed that the appellant was not eligible to be promoted to the post of Director Livestock in view of departmental service rules, therefore, dismissed the appeal. The Service Tribunal formed the view that the appellant, though, was Assistant Director in B-18 yet he was not promoted as Deputy Director. B-18, therefore, he was not eligible to be promoted as Director. It was further held by the Service Tribunal that since respondent No,6 was appointed as Deputy Director B-18 against special quota, he was eligible to be promoted as Director B-19. It is the aforesaid judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 10-10-2000 which is the subject of present appeal.
4. In support of appeal it was vehemently contended by Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant, that the impugned judgment passed by the Service Tribunal is liable to be set aside on the ground that the appellant was holding the post of Livestock Officer B-18 as such he was eligible to be promoted to the post of Director Livestock B-19. The learned counsel contended that in the relevant rules four categories have been mentioned which are held eligible to be promoted to the post of Director Livestock; (i) Deputy Director Animal Husbandry, (ii) Poultry,
(iii) Livestock and (iv) Disease Investigation Officer B-18. Since the appellant was holding the post of Livestock B-18, he was eligible to be promoted as Director Livestock. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was having better qualifications than respondent No,6. The appellant was qualified as D.V.M. (four years after F.Sc.) and joined the Animal Husbandy Department on the recommendations of Public Service Commission in B-16 on 9-1-1975.
He was promoted to B-17 on 1-5-1977 and thereafter he was promoted to B-18 w,e,f, 8-3-1992 with special pay of Rs,150. Thus, keeping in view the qualifications possessed by the appellant, the respondents Nos.1 and 5 with mala fide intention held that the appellant was not eligible to be promoted to the post of Director Livestock B-19, thus kept the Selection Board in dark by not including the name of appellant in the panel of officers to be selected by the Selection Board. The learned counsel also emphasised that had the appellant been considered by the Selection Board, the appellant had every chance of promotion. The learned counsel maintained that promotion of respondent No,6 is mala fide and the same is borne out from the fact that firstly the said respondent was promoted to the post of Director on current charge basis in violation of the rules when the appeal of appellant against the said order was pending adjudication and in the meantime the case of respondent was placed before the Selection Board.
5. Controverting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ashfaque Hussain Kiani, the learned counsel for the respondent No,6,' contended that in order to be promoted to the post of Director Livestock in accordance with the relevant rules it was essential to possess the qualifications as postulated in the said Rules. The learned counsel contended that only the officers holding the post of Deputy Director Animal Husbandry Deputy Director Poultry/Deputy Director Livestock and Disease Investigation Officer B-18 in the department with at least 12 years' service in Grade B-17 and above could be appointed as Director Livestock. Since the appellant did not fall in any of the four categories mentioned above, his name was rightly not included in the panel of officers to be promoted as Director Livestock. Obviously when the appellant, according to the learned counsel, was not eligible to be promoted as Director Livestock could not have been considered by the Selection Board for promotion. The Service Tribunal thus committed no illegality in promoting respondent No,6 as Director Livestock who was eligible to be promoted as such being Deputy Director Animal Husbandry.
6. Raja Shiraz Kayani, the learned Advocate-General, representing respondents Nos.1 to 5, contended that in the relevant rules the words "officers holding the post of Deputy Director" have been used which will be read alongwith Animal Husbandry Poultry/Livestock, whereas Disease Investigation Officer B-18 is an independent cadre and the appellant even does not fall in the last category of Disease Investigation Officer B-18. The learned counsel emphasised that the words Livestock Officer B-18 is an independent functional unit, because after the words "Deputy Director Animal Husbandry" the symbol "oblique" has been used. Similarly after the words "Poultry" and "Livestock" the symbol "Oblique" is conspicuous, whereas at the end Disease Investigation Officer B- 18 has been incorporated in the relevant Rules.
7. After hearing the arguments addressed at the Bar and perusing the relevant record, it may be stated that in exercise of powers conferred by section 23 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976 and in supersession of Notification No,S&GAD/JS/29/156/89, dated 12-3-1984 as amended from time to time, the Government was pleased to make the following Rules:-- S.Name offunctionalName ofAppointingMinimumMethod ofAge for initialExamination No. Deptt.Unitthe postAuthorityQualificationrecruitmentrecruitmenttraining & withfor appoint-other condi-. gradement by:-tions requried for confirmat-- ion initial recruit-- ment or transfer prom-Min Max otion
1. AnimalTechnicalDirectorGovt.As perby promotion on the basis, of Husban-B-19Column 8.selection on merit from amongst darythe officers holding posts of Deputy Deptt.Director Animal Husbandry/ Poultry/.
Live Stock/Disease Investigation Officer B-18 in the Department with at least 12 years service in Grade B-17 and above.
' The above Rules explicitly shows that for promotion to the post of Director Animal Husbandy four categories have been laid down which are eligible to be promoted, i,e, (i) Deputy Director Animal Husbandy (ii) Deputy Director Poultry (iii) Deputy Director Livestock and (iv) Disease Investigation Officer B-18 in the department with at least 12 years service in Grade B-17 and above: After the words "Deputy Director Animal Husbandry" the symbol "oblique" has been used. Similarly after the word "Poultry" the symbol "oblique' has been used. With the words "Livestock" though the symbol "oblique" has been incorporated but thereafter we find the words "Disease Investigation Officer B- 18" and even in this category the appellant does not fall as he neither claims nor he is a Disease.
Investigation Officer B-18. The interpretation put fourth by the learned counsel for the appellant that with the words Livestock Officer B-18, Deputy Director should not be read is not tenable for the simple reason that soon before the word "Livestock" the symbol "oblique" starts. This shows that the symbol "oblique" used before the word "Livestock" refers to the words "Deputy Director Livestock".
Any interpretation of the suymbol "oblique" other than the above'would be ridiculous and as such not tenable. The dictionary meanings of the word "oblique" as provided in Chambers 1st Century Dictionary are as follows:-- "An oblique indicates alternative. Bring yours swimming costume and/or a tennis racquet."
' This also shows that the symbol "oblique" is used in the sense of and/or as it indicates alternatives.
8. Another contention raised, by-the learned counsel for the appellant is that for promotion to the post of Deputy Director the requirement laid down in the rules is as follows:--{{TABLE}} S.Name offunctionalName ofAppointingMinimumMethod ofAge for initialExamination No. Deptt.Unitthe postAuthorityQualificationrecruitmentrecruitmenttraining & withfor appoint-other condi-. gradement by:-tions requried for confirmat-- ion initial recruit-- ment or transfer prom-Min Max otion
1. Animal Technical DeputyGovt.Ph. D Dr. M.Sc. As per i) 25% by initial Husban-Directorin the relevantColumn recruitment as per daryAnimalsubject from a8col.6 Deptt.Husbandary/recognizedii) 7596 by promotion on the PoultryUniversity withbasis of Selection on merit Livestock/basic degree infrom amongst the officer hol.
DiseaseVeterinaryding posts of Assistant Dire - Invest/-Science andctor Animal Husbandry/Pout gationAnimaltry Development Officer/ OfficerHusbandr)Sheep Development Officer/ B-182.5 yearsResearch Officer/Asstt. experienceDisease Investigation Off-- respectivelyicer/sheep Livestock Officer Grade B-17. holding the supervisory post with at least 5 years as such.
' By referring the aforesaid rule the learned counsel maintained that in that case the appellant who is a Livestock Officer B-18 could not be considered to become Deputy Director as in the relevant rules the words "Livestock Officer Grade B-17" have been used, whereas the appellant is holding the post of. Livestock Officer B-18. The argument, on the face of it, is not tenable as the post of Livestock Officer Grade B-17 has been upgraded to B-18. The relevant rules have not been challenged either before the Service Tribunal or before this Court. The Rules relating to service matter of appellant and respondent No,6 may be defective in so many aspects but we have to interpret the same as they are and not as they should be. To amend the relevant Rules is not the function of the Court.
' In the light of what has been stated above, we find no illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the Service Tribunal, the appeal, therefore, stand dismissed with no order as to costs.