' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, J---This appeal with the leave of the Court has been filed against the judgment passed on 18-12-2000 by the Service Tribunal, whereby appeal filed by respondent No,1 was accepted and the order of promotion of the appellant herein dated 20-1-1998 was set aside.
2. Facts necessary for the decision of the appeal briefly stated are that the appellant herein was appointed by transfer against a post of Special Teacher in Agro-technical Centre Muzaffarabad on 19-5-1993. Two posts of Senior Teachers B-16 of Agro-technical Centrel Muzaffarabad were upgraded w,e,f, 1-9-1993 in B-17' by the Government through a notification issued on 31-3-1997. The case of the appellant who at the relevant time was serving against a post of Specialist Teacher was forwarded to the Selection Board for promotion against one of the above referred upgraded posts. The Selection Board recommended him for promotion against one of the posts in B-17.
Accordingly a notification was issued on 20-1-1998 whereby appellant was promoted in B-17.
Respondent herein without availing any departmental remedy availed the appellate jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal by filing an appeal on 15-4-1998. In para 8 of his appeal he mentioned that he brought his grievance in the notice of high officials of the Department but they failed to redress his grievance as such he was left with no choice but to file appeal before the Tribunal. However no copy of any such departmental remedy or order passed thereon by any departmental authority was appended by him with his appeal. Precisely his case was that respondent was inducted in education service in B-9 on 10-2-1990 and was promoted in B-15 on 10-9-1998, much earlier to the promotion of the appellant in B-15, he was already serving in Education Department in B-15, and therefore, according to him he being senior should have been considered along with the appellant for further promotion. He blamed the appellant that he secured promotion on account of his influence.
3. In the written statement filed by the appellant various preliminary objections were raised for the dismissal of the appeal. According to appellant, respondent herein was not an aggrieved party as such not justified in law to avail appellate jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. According to appellant only those persons could be considered for promotion who fulfilled the requirements of the post. According to him the respondent was not fulfilling the academic qualification laid down for the upgraded post as such he could not be considered. He further pleaded that he (appellant) was promoted on the recommendations of the Selection Board but the Selection Board has not been arrayed in the line of defendants therefore appeal due to this defect was liable to be rejected.
Another objecticn was that appeal was filed beyond the limitation as such was liable to be dismissed en this ground.
4. The learned Tribunal mentioned in detail the respective pleadings of the parties in the judgment under challenge before us along with the points raised by the learned counsel for the parties during their arguments for and against the respective pleadings of their clients, but without resolving the issues so raised, the Tribunal through a telegraphic order consisting of few lines allowed the appeal of the respondent and set aside the promotion order of the appellant.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has seriously criticized the order under challenge passed by the Service Tribunal. According to him appeal was filed without availing the departmental remedy, therefore, it was premature and liable to be dismissed on this ground. The second objection is that if the appeal filed by respondent is treated against the original order of promotion of his liens even then it was barred by limitation. He in support of his contentions relied on a case titled Asif Majeed Khan v. Tahir Ayyub Abbasi and 3 others 1994 PLC (C.S.) 1514 in which it was laid down:-- "----Service Tribunal is competent to hear only that appeal which has been filed after a period of 90 days has elapsed after the filing of the application for review or representation."
He also relied upon another authority titled Muhammad Bashir Khan and another v. Inspector- General of Police and others 1993 PLC (C.S.) 986 wherein it is laid down by this Court:-- "A case in which a person has not been considered fit for promotion can file a representation, Appellant having not exhausted the departmental remedy was debarred to file an appeal before the Service Tribunal in light of the proviso (a) of section 4(1) of the Act."
6. He further argued that the Tribunal has not given any finding upon question of facts and law as such the order of the Tribunal is not judicial verdict in the eye of law.
7. Mr. Abdul Rashid Karnahi, the learned counsel for the pro forma-respondents, also supported the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. However, he suggested that admittedly departmental remedy was not availed by the respondent and appeal was filed beyond the limitation before the learned Service Tribunal, therefore, we should ourselves pass an appropriate order in light of these admitted facts.
8. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case with their assistance. Judgments as we all know is expression of Court's opinion given after due consideration of pleadings of the parties and evidence tendered by them for and against their respective pleadings and arguments addressed before the Court or Special Tribunal performing judicial functions. In the presenucase the Tribunal has mentioned in detail the respective pleadings of the parties and points raised for determination, but has not resolved these points. No reason has been given in support of the conclusion nor the order of the Tribunal, contained evaluation of documentary evidence and discussion thereon. We therefore agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment of the Tribunal is no judgment in the eye of law. Ordinarily in such cases where judgment is -found faulty we remand the case to the concerned Court or Tribunal for fresh hearing and judgment. In this case the order of remand shall cause further financial burden to the parties as appeal before the Tribunal was not filed in accordance with the law. Under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1975 as was applicable at the time when appeal was preferred by the respondent before the Service Tribunal no appeal was competent unless two conditions were fulfilled, firstly the party availing the right of appeal should have availed departmental remedy and secondly that after availing departmental remedy the party should wait for a period of 90 days. In case departmental remedy availed is not decided within this period then in next 30 days the appellate jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal can be invoked. In the present case departmental remedy was not availed against the promotion order of the appellant dated 20-1-1998. Respondent directly filed appeal before the Service Tribunal on 15- 4-1998 which was not maintainable .Before the Service Tribunal because appeal is a statutory right which can be availed in accordance with the prescribed manner. It is an established principle of law that when an act is required to be perforated in a particular manner the act must be performed according to the prescribed manner or not at all. The same view was expressed by this Court earlier in a case Asif Majeed Khan v. Tahir Ayyub Abbasi and 3 others 1994 PLC (C.S.) 1514 discussed earlier.
' In the light of above reasoning we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment, of the Service Tribunal.