' JAVED IQBAL, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6-4- 2000 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed with the observation that terms and conditions .Of service as enumerated in the offer of appointment dated 4-1-1985 have not been violated by the respondents.
2. The case has chequered history, details whereof as enumerated in the judgment impugned are to the effect that "after going through mills of written test and interview he was offered appointment through Memorandum, dated 14-1-1985 for the post of Deputy Central Intelligence Officer (BPS-17) in the Intelligence Bureau. This appointment was subsequently approved by the ' competent authority through Notification, dated 19-2-1985, made effective from the forenoon of 24-1-1995 when offer of appointment was accepted by the appellant. The appellant made an application, dated 12-2-1990 for supplying certain documents and position of his merit.
Accordingly, he was informed through Memorandum, dated 21-3-1990 about this merit and also supplied the recruitment rules, dated 24-12-1984 for the posts of Deputy Assistant Director (BPS-17 + Rs,220 Special Pay) and Deputy Central Intelligence Officer (BPS-17 + Rs,140 Special Pay). The appellant made another representation, dated 10-5-1990 for the determination of his seniority according to merits. This application was rejected through letter, 23-7-1990 (impugned in this appeal) and he was informed that the competent authority has decided at the time of appointment to offer the appellant the post of Deputy Central Intelligence Officer and the other selectee Mr. Anwar Ali was offered the, appointment of Deputy Assistant Director. Against this order, the appellant filed Writ Petition No,1439 of 1991 in the Hon'ble Lahore High Court at Rawalpindi Bench and it was dismissed in limine through order dated 2-10-1994 for want of jurisdiction as the matter relates to the terms and conditions of service of the appellant which is amendable to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It transpires that during the pendency of writ petition the appellant made another representation, dated 14-10-1990 on the same subject-matter which was also rejected through letter, dated 6-1-1991. The appellant being dissatisfied with the decision made another application on 2-2-1991 which was withheld through letter, dated 8-5-1991. The appellant, through another application dated 13-5-1991, requested for sending his application to the competent authority. After the decision of writ petition, the appellant made representation, dated 14-2-1995 which was followed by another representation dated 25-2-1996 addressed to the Director-General Intelligence Bureau which were withheld as-time-barred through letter dated 30- 11-1998. The appellant, preferred an appeal to the Secretary Establishment through an application, dated 4-12-1998 which was also withheld and his request for sending the application to the competent authority was also rejected through letter, dated 13-2-1999 which was stated to be received by the appellant on 15-2-1999." Being aggrieved an appeal was preferred before the Federal Service Tribunal which has been rejected, hence this petition.
3. We have heard Khurram Aslam Khan (Petitioner) in person, examined the entire record and perused the judgment impugned. A careful scrutiny of the record would indicate that the petitioner himself had accepted the appointment of Deputy Central Intelligence Officer made by means of Notification dated 19-2-1985 and joined as such without raising any objection worth the name. The petitioner kept mum for five long years and woke up from the slumber and made representation for the redressal of the grievance which was rejected and his request for appointment as Deputy Central Intelligence Officer with retrospective effect was turned down vide order dated 23-7-1990 which was admittedly assailed before the learned Federal Service Tribunal on 16-3-1999 after lapse of about ten years. It is worth-mentioning here at this juncture that various representations were made but without any sacess and rejected on 6-1-1991, 8-5-1991, 30-10-1998 and 13-2-1999. The petitioner should have approached the Service Tribunal within the stipulated period of thirty days as provided under section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 which could not be done for more than ten years and thus the appeal filed before the Service Tribunal was hopelessly barred by time.
It hardly needs any elaboration that the device of successive and-repeated representations cannot extend the prescribed time limit No illegality whatsoever has been committed by the learned Service Tribunal while, rejecting the appeal being barred by time The question of limitation has been dilated upon and decided in a comprehensive manner by the learned Service Tribunal in the judgment impugned, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- "8. Notwithstanding the aforementioned observations even the first representation preferred by the appellant on 10-5-1990 was time-barred for more than five years as the offer of appointment was accepted by him on 24-1-1985, which was rejected on 23-7-1990 but the appellant has failed to file any appeal before this Tribunal within 30 days or prefer any further appeal to the appellate authority within the same period as required by the Government Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977.
Thus, in all respect, the appeal of the appellant is hopelessly time-barred and the appellant has miserably failed to explain each day's delay either in the appeal or by submitting an application for condonation of delay in accordance with rule-8 of Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974."
4. We are also of the considered opinion that the petitioner has absolutely no case on merit who himself had accepted the post of Deputy Central Intelligence Officer without making the slightest protest. It would be too late in the day to ask for the appointment of Deputy Assistant Director and that too with retrospective effect without any legal or moral justification. The conclusion as arrived at by the learned Service Tribunal being well based and strictly in accordance with law does not warrant any interference. The petition being meritless is dismissed and leave refused.
Petition dismissed.