P L D 1983 Lahore 576 (PLP)

The petitioner challenges through this petition the order dated 24th February 1981, passed by the Commissioner, Lahore Division, accepting the appeal of the respondent No. 3, setting aside the promotion allowed to the petitioner and promoting the respondent No. 3 instead.

2. Briefly, the facts of this case are that the petitioner joined his service as Inspector Vaccination in the National Pay Scale No. 6 on 15th of May 1971. The respondent No. 3 was appointed as Vaccinator on 2nd May 1969 in the National Pay Scale. No. 5, Later, when a vacancy of Assistant Superintendent Vaccination and Rural Sanitation (N. P. S. 8) arose, the petitioner applied to the District Health Officer for the same, He appears to have been working in N. P. S. 8 at that time.

3. The District Health Officer, Kasur promoted the petitioner to the said post vide his order dated 7th June, 1980. It was communicated to the petitioner to 12th June 1980, and he assumed the said office. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent No. 3 filed an appeal assailing the order in favour of the petitioner on various grounds. It was accepted by the Commissioner on 21st February 1981, as said above.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel that as the petitioner was holding a post in N. P. S, 8 and. was, consequently, senior to the respondent No. 3, the Commissioner erred in law in accepting the appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent while defending the order of the Commissioner, referred to the Appendix to rule 6 (5) (i) of the West Pakistan Health Department Vaccination Subordinate Rules, 1968 and argued that as 90% of the posts had to be filled up only by the Vaccinators, the petitioner, who was an Inspector Vaccination could not even be considered for it. He further stated that even otherwise, a previous post having been filled on promotion by an Inspection against 10 % quota, at least nine further posts could not be given to any Inspector at all.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Writ Petition No. 1752/S/75 where a Sanitary Inspector had been promoted to the post of Superintendent Vaccination. That judgment, however, does not help him. According to the rules and the instructions mentioned therein, an Inspector Vaccination or a Sanitary Inspector could be considered for promotion to the post of -an Assistant Superintendent. The learned counsel, therefore, had to refer to any rules to satisfy me on the point that Vaccinators only are not entitled to promotion to the 90Y. posts of Assistant Superintendent Vaccination and rural Sanitation as stated by the other side,

6. Rule 6(5) reads as under "(5) Vacancies to be filled by promotion shall be filled in the following manner : (i) ninety per cent. of such vacancies shall be filled by selection on merit with due regard to seniority from among members of the service eligible for promotion to such vacancies in accordance with the provisions contained in column 4 of the Appendix; and (ii) the remaining ten per cent. of such vacancies shall form a merit quota and shall be filled by selection on merit from among members of the Service eligible for promotion to such vacancies in accordance with the provisions contained in column 4 of the Appendix, who (a) have an outstanding record; (b) are below thirty-two years of age; and (c) possess sound health. The Appendix attached to the above rule concerns three categories of employees, i.e. (1) Superintendent of Vaccination and Inspector of Vaccination. (2) Assistant Superintendent of Vaccination and Public Vaccinators. (3) Vaccinators. According to this appendix; a Vaccinator can be promoted as an Assistant Superintendent of Vaccination or a Public Vaccinator. An Assistant Superintendent of Vaccination or a Public Vaccinator is eligible to be appointed as a Superintendent of Vaccination or an Inspector of Vaccination. Thus the petitioner who was already working as an Inspector of Vaccination could not ask' for and compete with respondent No. 3 for promotion to the A post of Assistant Superintendent of Vaccination.

7. Reference by the learned counsel to the case of Muhammad Ashraf v. Commissiomer etc. (W. P. No. 1752-S of 1975) is also of no help to him. There an Inspector of Vaccination holding N. P, S. 6 was competing, as in this case, with a Vaccinator for a post of Assistant Superintendent Vaccination, in the District Council, Gujrat. At the time of creation of the post and again while recommending the names the District Health Officer made it clear that the candidate must be a qualified Sanitary Inspector. The rule relied upon in that case was 9(c) of the West Pakistan Local Councils Municipal Commitee Service Rules, where the minimum qualification ,vas matriculation. Thus the plea built up in that case was that the candidate to the post of Assistant Superintendent Vaccination must be matriculate and a Sanitary Inspector. It was in that situation that the order of the Commissioner promoting the non. matriculate Vaccinator was set aside and case remanded to be decided in accordance with law. Under the rules referred to, in this case, also the minimum qualification for a Vaccinator is matriculation. So even though the rules mentioned in para. 4 above were not produced and relied on by any of the parties in that case, yet the remand in that case on the basis of minimum qualification would hold good on that ground but nothing else therein is helpful to the petitioner, Further, the petitioner is not a Sanitary Inspector either, and the letters referred to in W. P. No. 1752-S-75 even if relied upon will not support him. He is an Inspector Vaccination and is governed by the rules given in para. 4 above. In view of the above, there is no error in the order of the Commissioner calling for interference. This petition is consequently dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.