1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J: ‑‑The respondent was a Qanungo in the Revenue Department and was serving at Haripur. In 1977 he was promoted as officiating Naib‑Tehsildar on ad‑hoc basis. The promotion did not confer any right on him to appointment as Naib‑Tehsildar on regular basis. However, that may be, in 1987 four regular vacancies in the cadre of Naib‑Tehsildar became available. His case for regular appointment was considered alongwith the other officiating Naib‑Tehsildars but as he was the junior‑most officer he was not considered. In November, 1988 he was placed under suspension on the charge of making unauthorised interpolations in the Khasra Girdawari. A regular inquiry was held and as a right thereof he was exonerated and reinstated in service. While he was under suspension some more vacancies in the regular cadre of Naib‑Tehsildars occurred but he was not considered on account of suspension. After his reinstatement no effort was made by the department to put him in the same position which he would have enjoyed had he not been suspended or made to face an inquiry. Subsequently, when some more vacancies occurred he was again ignored for the sole reason that he had crossed' the age‑limit of 50 years and as such had become ineligible for promotion under the West Pakistan Tehsildari and Naib‑Tehsildari Service Rules, 1962.

2. There were numerous cases where the Government had relaxed the age‑limit of officials for the purpose of making them eligible for promotion as Naib‑Tehsildar. The respondent moved the Provincial Government that in his case too the age‑limit should be relaxed. His request was turned down by the Government. He filed an appeal before the Provincial Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal accepted the appeal and directed the Provincial Government to grant him relaxation in age‑limit on the ground that his was a case of hardship. From the order of the learned Tribunal the Provincial Government has come, in appeal to this Court.

3. Leave to appeal was granted to the appellant to consider the question whether the Tribunal was competent to direct the Provincial Government to relax the upper age‑limit of the respondent.

4. It is not disputed that the respondent was. not considered for promotion when he had not yet crossed the age‑limit for the sole reason that an inquiry was pending against him. After he had been found innocent and exonerated of the charges against him it was only fair that the Government should have put him in the same position that he would have enjoyed if the inquiry had not been ordered against him. For some reasons which have not been disclosed on the record the Government omitted to do so, even though there were numerous precedents in this regard. The judgment of the learned Tribunal has merely rectified the situation. As the order of the learned Tribunal is an eminently fair one we are reluctant to interfere with it. In view of the peculiar facts of this case this does not seem to be a proper occasion for us to examine if the Tribunal was competent to exercise a power which under the relevant rules vested only in the Provincial Government. Accordingly, we withdraw the leave already granted to the appellant and dismiss the petition. There will be no order as to costs. A.A./G‑424/S Order accordingly.