1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

AJMAL MIAN, C.J.

This is an appeal with the leave of this Court against the judgment dated 1-10-1995 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal ` "`` No.482.(Q) of 1994 filed by the appellant for the following relief: "It is accordingly respectfully prayed that while setting aside the order dated 26-5-1994 passed by respondent No.2, respondents may be directed to post them in Investigation Wing of F.I.A. or in the alternative they may be treated in like manner and all those appointments/incentive which are available to other members of Agency including his posting in Emigration Cell may be provided." dismissing the same. The brief facts are that the appellant in response to an advertisement which appeared in the press, applied for appointment as Inspector (Legal) in the F.I.A. He was selected and then appointed as such on 1-6-1988. He is still working in the above capacity. However, he made representation to the department to the effect that he should be transferred to a post in the Investigation Wing so that he might have equal opportunity to be promoted whereas in the Legal Branch there was no such opportunity. Since the appellant did not get any redress from the department he filed the above appeal, which was dismissed by the Tribunal for the following reasons: "As regards the question of discrimination the department has filed reply with regard to change of group of the abovementioned 3 officers. It has been stated that officers of the Technical Group are deputed to serve in other groups for their expert opinion in the matters relating to checking of passports etc. but they remain under the administrative control of their Zonal Director and are very much officers of the Technical Wing and they reckon their seniority in their own group. In these circumstances the contention of the appellant that there has been indiscrimination in his case is without substance, and those persons not being a party in this appeal, no order can be passed on this point. " After that the appellant filed a petition for leave to appeal, which was granted to consider the contention noticed in the leave granting order. In support of the above appeal Mr. S.A.M. Quadri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently contended that the groups specified in Rule 12 of the F.I.A. (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) are part of one cadre or one service and, therefore, the persons working, in different groups are inter se transferable. According to him, this has been done in the past. In support of above submission he relied upon the judgment in the case of Ghulam Haider v. The Province of West Pakistan and 15 others (PLD 1971 Quetta 57) wherein a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan held that since the Balochistan Police Promotion and Appointment Rules, 1952, make no distinction between the Prosecution Branch and Executive Branch of the Police Force, the respondent department's insistence that the appellant in that case could not be promoted because he belonged to the Prosecution Branch was entirely erroneous. The above case has no -application as in the present case the rules were framed in 1975 under section 9 of the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974, and therefore, they have statutory force. Rule 12 of the Rules provides as under:-- "

12. For the purpose of promotion, direct appointment and transfer, the posts in the Federal Investigation Agency will be placed in the following groups namely: (i) Investigation (ii) Accounts (iii) Customs. (iv) Income Tax. (v) Engineering (vi) Legal. These groups may, for the smooth administration of the Agency and, with the prior approval of Federal Government, be added to or modified as may be considered appropriate by the Director General." A perusal of the above rules indicates that the posts in the F.I.A. have been categorised in six groups, each having its own peculiar requirement as to the eligibility. The above rule was in the field when the appellant applied for the aforesaid post. He knew that he was applying for a post in the Legal Group which is separately categorised in Rule 12 of the Rules. Even otherwise, no civil servant has a vested right to get himself transferred from one post to another. In this view of the matter, that Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appellant's appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.