' SYED DEEDAR HUSSIAN SHAH, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of Sindh Service Tribunal, dated 6-2-2001, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent was appointed as City Surveyor in the year 1959. He had been working against the said post for thirty years when the post of Assistant City Survey Officer (BS-16) had fallen vacant. He due to his mertorious service record was allowed move-over from BS-7 to BS-13. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of City Survey Officer (BS-16) vide Board of Revenue Notification No,49-84-1991 Estt. II, dated 22-12-1997. According to record, in Karachi the City Survey Department was basically established to maintain the record of rights of the properties which are surveyed in the city under the City Survey Manual, 1920. Before the respondent joined the post on promotion, the same had been occupied by the officials belonging to his cadre which are governed by the West Pakistan Inspector of Revenue and City and Revenue Surveyors (Southern Zone) Service Rules, 1963. The post of Assistant City Survey Officer is a promotion post and no appointment by way of direct recruitment can be made against the said post. According to the respondent, one Gul Hassan Bhatti, a senior most City Surveyor, was promoted as City Surveyor Officer in the year 1958. After his retirement the Government of Sindh posted a Mukhtiarkar as Assistant City Survey Officer, but being unable to come up with the work another senior Surveyor Abdullah Hassan Ali was promoted as Assistant City Survey Officer in the year 1981. At the time of his retirement, the respondent being senior most having 36 years' service was allowed to work as Assistant City Survey Officer, and assumed the charge. Being eligible for promotion he made an application to the Secretary to Government of Sindh/Senior Member, Board of Revenue. Admittedly, the Departmental Promotion Committee recommended his promotion with the approval of the competent authority, and as such notification was issued On 22-12-1997, and he assumed the charge of the said post on 26-12-1997. All of a sudden the Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh (respondent No,2 before the Tribunal), without affording any opportunity of hearing and issuing show-cause notice, cancelled his promotion on 29-12-1997 on the sole ground that the respondent could not be promoted from BS-7 to BS-17 i.e, nine steps up. Accordingly, the Secretary to Government of Sindh/Senior Member, Board of Revenue withdrew his promotion.
3. Respondent being aggrieved, assailed the aforesaid order of the Secretary to Government of Sindh by filing a departmental appeal on 17-1-1998, which was received by the office of Chief Minister on 20-1-1998 and remained undecided. Thereafter, he approached the Sindh Service Tribunal within the statutory period, as required under the law, praying for quashment of impugned order, dated 29-12-1997 and restoration of order, dated 22-12-1997. Before the Tribunal, the Secretary to Government of Sindh filed written statement was also adopted by the Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, and the same was brought on record alongwith a letter of Government of Sindh dated 9-3-2000. In the written statement the position as mentioned by the respondent was almost admitted. The petitioner herein virtually agreed with the averrments of the respondent, but submitted that the two posts of Assistant City Survey Officers in Karachi Division were being filled in by way of transfer of Mukhtiarkar (BS- 16). However, against these two posts, the post of Assistant City Survey Officer, Malir has never been filled in by promotion.
4. The Sindh Service Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent vide judgment dated 6-2-2001, hence this petition.
5. Mr. Samar Khan, learned Additional Advocate-General, inter alia, contended that the Service Tribunal erred in law and rules by holding that the respondent be restored to his promoted post of BPS-16 and will continue till rules are notified; seriously erred by not considering the point of limitation; and also erred by not giving due consideration to the Notification dated 22-12-1997 on the ground that the respondent cannot be promoted from BPS-7 to BPS-16.
6. We have considered the arguments of the learned Law Officer and minutely examined the available record as well as the impugned judgment. Admittedly due to length of service and unblemished record the respondent was promoted and such notification was issued with the approval of the competent authority. In the written statement the petitioner admitted the case of the respondent. The learned Law Officer, who appeared on behalf of petitioner before the Service Tribunal, admitted the fact that Board of Revenue, who promoted the respondent, had also justified the above action in their written statement. The Departmental Promotion Committee recommended the case of the respondent for promotion and Senior Member, Board of Revenue, being the competent authority, issued the notification, which was not in violation of any rules. The Service Tribunal had rightly considered the case of the respondent while allowing the appeal.
7. The judgment of the Tribunal is in consonance with the law and rules. There is no misreading or non-reading of evidence, or misconstruction of law. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are not tenable. Moreover, no question of public importance is involved as contemplated under Article 185(3) of the Constitution.
8. The petition sans merits, which is accordingly dismissed and leave is declined.