1. CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.---Briefly, the facts of the present I.C.A. Is that appellant was appointed by the respondents as Deputy Director Research and Evaluation on 9-5-1990. The appellant preferred an application before the concerned authorities that he be transferred to general cadre. The application was allowed by the respondents subject to the condition that the appellant reckoned loss in seniority list of the employees in the general cadre. The appellant accepted the aforesaid condition imposed by the respondents and the appellant started serving in the general cadre. The employees of the respondents in special cadre filed Writ Petition No, 6377 of 1996 and Writ Petition No, 3932 of 1993 with the prayer that they were also entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Director which was not confined to the employees of general cadre. The petitions filed by the employees of the respondents succeeded up to the level of I.C.A. The appellant also filed Writ Petition No, 2344 of 1997 on the basis of judgments of this Court, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 4-6-1999 on the ground that the appellant had already in general cadre pursuant to an order passed on 8-6-1993 by Director 'Administration which was acted upon and, appellant estopped by his own conduct to file Constitutional petition.
2. ' The learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Single Judge was erred in law to dismiss the Constitutional petition as the question of law had already been decided by this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions which were attached with the Constitutional petition as Annexure R/13 and R/14 respectively. He urged that question of estoppel by conduct does not arise but the learned Single Judge was erred in law to dismiss the same on the said grounds; that the appellant is entitled to get the same relief by virtue of Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution as the principle laid down by this Court in Writ Petition No, 6377 of 1996 that learned Single Judge has already decided Writ Petition No, 3932 of 1993 and Writ Petition No, 3933 of 1993' and laid down principle that the distinction made by the L.D.A. Regarding different cadre for example in general and technical cadre was not valid and that one and the same seniority list was to be prepared for the prospective promotion as Deputy Director and Director LDA that appellant was penalized by the inaction of public functionaries as the public functionaries committed mistake in interpreting the regulation in question.
3. ' We have considered the contention of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the facts in chronological order to resolve the controversy between the parties:-
(i) The appellant was appointed as Deputy Director Research and Evaluation on 9-5-1990;
(ii) That appellant filed an application before the competent authority that he should be transferred in general cadre which was accepted vide order dated 8-6-1993
(iii) That order dated 8-6-1993 was acted upon; and employees of respondents filed Writ Petitions No, 67377 of 1996 Fauzia Rohi Khan v. Government of Punjab and Writ Petition No,3932 of 1993 Raees Ahmed Khan v. L.D.A. Both the writ petitions were decided vide judgment dated 19-6-1997 and 11-10- 1997 respectively.
(iv) That the appellant on the basis of the aforesaid judgment of this Court filed Constitutional petition in the year 1997 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 4-5-1999.
4. In case the aforesaid facts are put in juxtaposition then it is crystal clear that the appellant was transferred to general cadre with certain conditions by the respondents vide order dated 8-6-1993 which was accepted by the appellant with the aforesaid condition. The learned Single Judge was justified to dismiss the Constitutional petition. The impugned judgment is in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghulam Sarwar Khan's case (1980 SCM R 566). It is settled proposition of law that nobody should be allowed to approbate and reprobate. In arriving to this conclusion we are fortified by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghulam Rasul's case (PLD 1971 SC 376). It is also settled principle of law that judgment has prospective effect and not retrospective effect as the law laid down in Muhammad Yousaf's case (PLD 1968 SC 101). We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment.
5. ' In view of what has been discussed above, this appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.