2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

JAVED IQBAL, J.

By this order we propose to dispose of the above-captioned petitions for leave to appeal which are directed against the common judgment dated 29-8-2001 passed by learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the appeals preferred on behalf of petitioners have been dismissed.

2. Precisely stated the facts of the case as enumerated in the Judgment impugned are to the effect that "appellants claimed pro-forma promotion to the post of Sub-Divisional Forest Officer w.e.f. 23-3-1984. After hectic entreaties and running from pillar to p9st ultimately succeeded in their endeavour on 29-9-1990 and they were granted relief. A new cause of action accrued in their favour when one Ali Muhammad son of Umer Din, formerly arrayed as respondent No.3 stated to be much junior to the appellants was allowed promotion to BS-18 on acting charge/officiating basis on 7-5-1987 against a regular post and later on said Ali Muhammad was promoted on regular basis w.e.f. 23-6-1996. Appellant once against made various representations which were decided to be placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee who were directed to consider the same after giving hearing to parties. The Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting convened on 9-10-1999 rejected the representations of the appellants and the decision was duly communicated to them on 29-11-1999 by respondent No.2. Appellants filed Service Appeals Nos.3561 and 3544 of 1999 which were dismissed by this Tribunal on 12-1-2000 as per-mature. Appellants thereafter moved the Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, on 9-2-2000 against the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 9-10-1999" which could not be decided within a period of ninety days and consequently the learned Punjab Service Tribunal was approached by means of above-captioned appeals which were dismissed vide judgment impugned, hence these petitions.

3. It is worth mentioning that the name of Ali Muhammad (respondent No.3) was got deleted by the petitioners by means of order dated 14-11-2000 which is reproduced herein-below for ready reference:-- "Comments have been filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 Learned counsel for the appellant requests for deletion of the name of respondents Nos.3 and

4. Learned DA has no objection. In this view of the matter, the names of respondents Nos.3 and 4 have been deleted from the list of respondents. Let the case be fixed for arguments on 18-1-2001."

4. Sh. Masood Akhtar, learned Advocate-on-Record appeared on behalf of petitioners and contended with vehemence that the order dated 14-11-2000 could have been rectified by the Punjab Service Tribunal by reviewing the same by exercising its inherent jurisdiction. It is also contended that the case of the petitioners should have been decided in accordance with law and they should not be knocked out on the basis of sheer technicalities. It is further contended that Ali Muhammad (respondent No.3) was the only necessary party and deletion of his name could be due to an inadvertent omission and at the- best it could be considered a technical hurdle having no substantial bearing on the merits of the case determination whereof should be on merit which would be in the interest of justice.

5. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of the petitioner and perused the judgment impugned with care and caution. We are not persuaded to agree with the prime contention of learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner that name of Ali Muhammad was got deleted due to an inadvertent omission as the order dated 14-11-2000 negates it which is free from any ambiguity and indicative of the fact that the deletion of the name of Ali Muhammad was sought in a categoric manner and accordingly his name was got deleted. In fact it was a gesture of goodwill shown by the petitioners in favour of Ali Muhammad for the reasons best known to them which cannot be equated to that of an inadvertent omission. It is to be noted that power of review cannot be exercised by way of discretion unless conferred upon a forum by some law or statute. No such power is conferred upon the Service Tribunal. It was not the question of rectification simplicitor because order dated 14-11-2000 could not be rectified without reviewing the same and no such review could have--been made by the Service Tribunal as no such provision is available in the relevant law. This aspect of the matter has been dilated upon and decided in a comprehensive manner vide judgment impugned, relevant portion whereof is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-- "

9. The next question which attracts the mind is whether in the interest of justice can I review the order dated 14-11-2000 by summoning Ali Muhammad (former respondent No.3) for hearing. In the first instance, I have no power of review; a power which has to be specifically invested in a statute and there being none, resort cannot be made. Arguments of learned counsel for the appellants that order dated 14-11-2000 was not final and therefore, in order to give hearing to Ali Muhammad (former respondent No.3), in the absence, ex parte order can always be recalled is again devoid of force. Name of Ali Muhammad (former respondent No.3) was specifically asked to be deleted and orders were accordingly passed. Construction m appeal is in the hands of the appellant and cannot be controlled by the hearing authority. In the present form, appeals are not properly constructed, therefore, no relief can be granted to the appellants. His train rival has been erased from the array of respondents. Even otherwise, leaving the objection aside, if Ali Muhammad, is now summoned by the Tribunal, he can raise a very valid objection that the appeal is grossly time-barred so far as he is concerned as he was the main person against whom the relief is claimed. At this junction, it would be pertinent to mention that earlier Service Appeals Nos.3561 of 1999 and 3544 of 1999 by the appellants were dismissed on the ground that representation, essential under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, was not resorted to. Appellants made representation to the Chief Secretary on 9-2-2000 i.e. after 30 days from 29-11 1999; the order now impugned. On this score, these appeals in their, present, form as urged by the District Attorney are barred by time. These observations are by way of passing reference, in any case the main question is the hurdle created by the order dated 14-11-2000 which the appellants had to surmount but failed to do so, resultantly, both the appeals being improperly constructed, no relief can be granted to the appellants against a person who was made a party but later on, on a request of the counsel of the appellants, his name stood deleted." The conclusion as arrived at by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal being unexceptionable hardly calls for any interference. The petitions being merit less are dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./G-190/S Leave refused.