1992PLC 914 (PLP)

Ch. Muhammad Insha Ullah and others v. Chief Conservator of Forests (P&E) Punjab and others PLD 1988 SC 155 and MA. Rafique v. Managing Director (Power) WAPDA and 7 others 1990 SCMR 927 ref. Syed Muzammal Ali Akram for Petitioner. Ahmad Awais for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th May, 1992. This Constitution petition was directed against the judgment dated 29-7-1985 of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal whereby accepting the appeal of the respondent Corporation the order of the learned Labour Court was set aside with the result that the direction to promote the petitioner stood withdrawn.

2. The relevant facts, briefly stated, are that Abdul Satay petitioner, who is a Senior Clerk sought promotion to the post of Assistant as a matter of right. As the respondent Corporation had shown its inability to promote him to the post of Assistant in view of the fact that he has not possessed of the qualification prescribed for the post under the amended Rules of 1976, the petitioner filed grievance petition before the Punjab Labour Court No.l which was accepted vide order dated 9-5-1979 and direction was made to promote the petitioner as Assistant with effect from 13th May, 1978. Learned Presiding Officer of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal reversed the said order observing that as the petitioner and other senior clerks, before him in the connected appeal, did not possess the required qualification under the amended Rules of 1976, they have no vested right for being considered for promotion. It was further observed that since according to the said Rules, they were not holding the requisite educational qualification, they were not eligible and that to put in nutshell the deciding factor is that one should have vested right under the Rules.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. No precedent or law could be cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner so as to show that the view which prevailed with the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal is contrary to law. Learned counsel for the Corporation on the other hand contended that the view expressed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal has the support of latest judgment of the Supreme Court. He relied on Ch. Muhammad Insha Ullah and others v. Chief Conservator of -Forests (P & E) Punjab and others PLD 1988 SC 155 and MA. Rafique v. Managing Director (Power) WAPDA and 7 others 1990 SCMR

927. In the case of M.A. Rafique, it was held that no right of promotion as claimed by civil servant was available to the posts not actually held by him but to which he was likely to be promoted at a future date. In the other case it was observed that in the absence of impairment of vested right. it would be within the exclusive competence of the Governor to determine the terms and conditions of the service and that the Rules which granted weightage to academic qualifications against experience were not unreasonable and harsh. Obviously, the petitioner after amendment cannot claim promotion to the higher post as he happened to be short of the minimum prescribed for the promotion.

4. In view of the above position of law, the learned Presiding Officer of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal rightly observed that the petitioner should have improved educational qualification, if he wanted promotion. For the reasons given above, there is no merit in this petition which fails and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H. B.T./A-131/L Petition dismissed.