1995SCMR4 (PLP)

SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑The petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, dated 19‑9‑1993, whereby the Service Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed both on the ground that the departmental representation/appeal filed before the departmental authority was beyond time and as such his appeal before the Tribunal was incompetent, as well as on the ground that the change introduced by the respondent (Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation/P.T.C.) in the recruitment rules by fixing quota of direct recruitment and the departmental promotees in the ratio 75 per cent. and 25 per cent. respectively did not contravene any of the provisions of law. It is an admitted position in the case that the grievance arose to the petitioner against the method of recruitment notified by the respondent (P.T.C.) on 24‑11‑1992. The departmental representation/appeal against the aforesaid method of recruitment was preferred by the petitioner on 29‑3‑1993 which was clearly beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing departmental representation/appeal. The learned Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal as not maintainable before the Tribunal for the reason that the departmental representation/appeal of the petitioner was beyond time, observed as follows:‑‑ "

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. It appears that the impugned method for recruitment for the post of Accounts Officer (BPS‑17) in PTC was notified on 24‑11‑1992 and the appellant filed a dubious departmental appeal against the said method on 29‑9‑1993 and simultaneously filed a writ petition before the High Court. Under the law, the prescribed period for filing a departmental appeal against the impugned order is 30 days whereas in the instant case, as already stated,, the impugned method was notified on 24‑11‑1992 and the appellant filed the departmental appeal on 29‑3‑1993 which was clearly beyond the period of limitation. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Qureshi and others v. Foreign Secretary (1985 SCMR 1953) has held that if a departmental appeal is filed after the period of limitation then the same is not an appeal in the eye of law and the appeal before the Tribunal is incompetent. Similar view was also taken by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, PIAC v. Nasim Malik (1990 SCMR 951). Following the above dictum of the Honourable Supreme Court we hold that the present appeal is incompetent as the departmental appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and is liable to be dismissed on this score alone:' The above reasoning given by the learned Tribunal for dismissing the appeal of the petitioner as not maintainable does not suffer from any infirmity. Since we have agreed with the conclusion of the learned Tribunal that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal was not maintainable, it is not necessary to examine the other contentions of the petitioner. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. AA./M‑2048/S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.