MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.-- This petition is directed against the judgment dated 29.1.2001 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), whereby the appeal filed by the respondent has been accepted and his appointment as S.D.O. From 8.5.1988 on current-charged basis has been converted into appointment on officiating basis.
2. The respondent was working as a Sub-Engineer when on the availability of a higher post of S.D.O.
He was appointed as such on current-charged basis with effect from 8.5.1988. He continued working in that capacity when on 9.7.1991 an order was passed for the withdrawal of his said appointment as S.D.O. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, the respondent approached the Tribunal through an appeal which has been accepted in the above terms.
3 The Tribunal concluded that under the law and the rules no promotion of an officer from lower grade to a higher grade on current-charged basis could be made under Rule 13 of the relevant rules. The petitioners could not, in such circumstances, appoint the respondent on current-charged basis as S.D.O. From 8.5.1988, therefore, it was converted into an appointment on officiating basis as provided in the said rule.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has admitted that the promotion of the respondent from the post of sub-Engineer to S.D.O. Is in line but submitted that the post which became available on 8.5.1988 fell in the quota of direct recruits, therefore, till such time a selectee from outside was available the appointment ' of the respondent was made on current-charged basis.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the departmental representatives could not point out any rule other than Rule 13 relied upon by the Tribunal which makes the provisions for making appointment on officiating basis in such a situation. The departmental representative stated that in the year 1995 the department issued an order for appointment of the respondent against the same post on officiating basis during the pendency of the appeal of the respondent in the Tribunal.
From this very fact it is also established that appointment of the respondent made initially on current-charged basis was not considered to be proper and the only proper appointment was in the officiating capacity. Since the respondent had been working as S.D.O. On current-charged basis from 8.5.1988, there was no justification for the department for not converting the said appointment to appoint on officiating basis from the said date and to deprive him from the benefit of such appointment.
The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity to warrant interference by this Court. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed and .