' KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.---The petitioners and private respondents were working as Junior Clerks in the offices of the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Faisalabad (hereinafter to be referred to as "the E.D.O.") and District Officer (Revenue), Faisalabad. Respondents Nos.4 to 7 along with some others were promoted by the District Officer (Revenue), Faisalabad as Senior Clerks vide Order No, 2270-M11C (E) dated 26-8-2002, on the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee dated 23rd of August, 2002, Seemingly, on the agitation of other claimants, the order of promotion Was withdrawn on 7-9-2002, with effect from 4-9-2002. The promotees represented against the withdrawal but the representation was turned down by the E.D.O. (Revenue) on 16-10- 2002. Respondents Nos.4 to 7 and other promotees filed separate appeals, four in number to question the legality of the orders of withdrawal of promotion. The Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Tribunal") accepted the appeals vide judgment dated 21-4- 2003, on the ground that the promotions had taken effect and no power was left with the competent authority to rescind the promotions on 7-9-2002.
2. In support of this petition against the order of the Tribunal dated 21-4-2003, learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the order dated 16-10-2002 passed by the E.D.O. In which he has found that the respondents promotees were able to procure recommendations from Departmental Promotion Committee by concealment of facts as also by changing the indexes of the dossiers of the officials and by making cuttings/additions. In the entries. Lie has therefore, strenuously urged that the order of withdrawal dated 7-9-2002 is justified.
3. It is admitted that the order of promotion dated 26-8-2002 had been duly implemented and the promotees had taken charge of their new assignments. It is also admitted that before passing order dated 7-9-2002, the affected prornotees were neither issued any notice nor they were given an opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal therefore, in our judgment, rightly concluded that the order dated 8-9-2002 was void.
4. Learned counsel has failed to point out any substantial question of law of public importance is involved in this case. The petition is hereby dismissed and leave is declined.
5. It is however, open to the competent authority to proceed afresh in the matter, in accordance with law, if so advised.