1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Ch. Abdul Majid Tahir for Appellant. Haroonur Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.‑ S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑ Shahabuddin, retired Kanungo, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Messrs Muhammad Khan and Bashir Ahmad, Sadar Kanungos, the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has challenged the orders, dated 31st March, 1982 and 1st June, 1982, whereby he was declined promotion and his review petition was rejected. The appellant has prayed that the said orders be set aside and the promotion of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to the posts of Sadar Kanungo, be also declared, without any legal effect.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Kanungo at Sialkot, when his name was considered for the post of Sadar Kanungo alongwith other desirous candidates namely Muhammad Khan and Bashir Ahmad. The competent authority found that the appellant was a non‑Matriculate and thus was ineligible for the said post, therefore, he was not promoted whereas Messrs Muhammad Khan and Bashir Ahmad secured the promotion, despite the fact that he was senior to the said two promotees. His representation and appeal was considered by the competent authority but the same was ultimately rejected vide his order, dated 12th August, 1982. Hence this appeal.

4. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Depart ment and have perused the record of this case with their assistance.

5. According to the history of the case, it has been found that the Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, wrote to the Deputy Com missioners Lahore and Kasur that there were two vacancies for the posts of Sadar Kanungo and asked the Deputy Commissioners to recommend the senior most Kanungos whose service record was found good. The Deputy Commissioners wrote to the Assistant Commissioners and asked for their recommendations as well as willingness of the persons to serve for such posts. It was however, found that the appellant Shahabuddin was the only person who was willing to serve as such but unfortunately, he did not fulfil the qualifications for the post of Sadar Kanungo, for which a person was required to be at least Matric. Later on Messrs Muhammad Khan and Bashir Ahmad office Kanungos of Daska, expressed their willingness to serve for the said posts, as they were already on the list of D. L. R. and their case for confirmation had already been sent to the competent authority. Their service record was also found satisfactory. Both these persons fulfilled the qualifications for the said posts as Munshi Muhammad Khan was F. Sc. and had also cleared the Naib‑Tehsildari examination whereas Munshi Bashir Ahmad was a Matriculate. In these circumstances, the appellant was ignored when it was also found that he had only 8 months left from his age of superannuation.

6. According to Land Administration Manual, 1972, it has been laid down that a person, who is to be selected as Sadar Kanungo, must at least be Matriculate. The appellant was called upon to produce the Matriculation Certificate but he failed to do so. He had earlier averred that he was a matriculate in this manner we are fully satisfied that the appellant did not fulfil the requisite qualification for the post of sadar Kanungo. With regard to the claim of seniority of the appellant we are of the considered opinion that mere seniority, would bestow upon him the right of being selected to such post unless and until the qualifica tions laid down in this behalf, are fulfilled. Moreover according to ‑P L D 1973 Lab. 220, it has been laid down that in the matter of selection of Kanungo, rules only confer authority on the Collector to make such selection and to none other officers, howhighsoever be, could assume such powers to interfere with the orders made by the Collector. Keeping the law so settled down, the Commissioner was fully justified to turn down the representation of the appellant in which he made a complaint that the Collector was not justified to pass the impugned order.

7. In view of the above, we do not find any justification to interfere with the two, well‑considered orders of the Deputy Commissioner as well as of the Commissioner, particularly when this Tribunal has no jurisdic tion to interfere in matters of promotions so made by the competent authority. The appeal is dismissed is limine without costs. Announced in the open Court on 15th December, 1982. M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.