1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN (MEMBER).‑‑‑The appellant joined WAPDA in 1966 and was allowed BPS‑5 as Tracer in 1977 and as Draftsman Grade B on 24‑9‑1991. He was placed at Serial No.5 of the seniority list of Draftsman Grade B and was allowed Selection Grade in BPS‑16 with effect from 17‑7‑1995. Some posts of Draftsmen Grade A fell vacant in the promotion quota and juniors to the appellant were reported to have been promoted and the appellant was not considered for such promotion. He filed a representation which was rejected vide order dated 26‑6‑1996 which has been challenged by way , of the present appeal. The appellant alleges that his entire record of service was unblemished and the A.C.Rs. particularly for the preceding years were good and the Selection Board has not applied its mind and that the impugned final order dated 26‑6‑1996 was self‑contradictory as it has been stated that the appellant was not found fit for promotion and, therefore, the Board has deferred the case of the appellant till the .next meeting. It was further alleged that he was granted selection grade on 17‑7‑1995 and the same record was the relevant one for the purpose of promotion to Grade A, however, due to non- application of mind the appellant has been superseded.

2. The respondents filed written objections, without any supporting documents, stating therein that promotion could be given on the basis of seniority‑cum‑fitness and the appellant was considered not fit for promotion from the post of Draftsman Grade B to Grade A. The only reason for such unsuitability was the lack of technical skills in respect of preparing/interpreting Drawing of the Grid Stations and Transmission Lines and framing/checking of the estimate of their construction work which was supposed to be handled by him after promotion. Thus, again a contradictory stand was taken that the competent Authority deferred the appellant for promotion for the said reasons.

3. The respondents have not placed on file any document whereby the fitness or unfitness of the appellant is determined. If a person is considered for promotion and found unfit for the job to which he was likely to be promoted, he is said to have been superseded whereas if the Departmental Promotion Committee or the Selection Board is not in a position to assess the suitability of the employees due to the non‑availability of certain record, the case of such employee is not considered and he is said to have been deferred. His case is placed before the Committee/Board on the availability of record and after promotion he regains his seniority with his juniors from the date they were promoted. The respondents stated on the one hand that the appellant has been considered but found not suitable for promotion which means that he was superseded but no other hand it is stated that he has been deferred and will be considered in the next meeting of the Board which means that he was not considered due to non‑availability of certain record The record has not been placed as to how it was assessed that he was not fit to hold the job on promotion. It was not a post to be filled by direct recruitment or on the basis of test and interview. The posts were admittedly against the promotion quota whereby those who were eligible to held the post of Draftsman Grade B were eligible to be promoted on their Seniority and fitness. Under the ESTACODE the fitness for promotion is determined on the basis of confidential reports clearance from disciplinary matters; length of service and the proof of having completed the training or examination if so required., No record is available with the comments to help us to understand the view‑point of the department as to how the appellant was found unsuitable. Thus, due to non‑availability of record and self- contradictory and ambiguous stands in the written objection, we have no alternative but to hold that there was nothing adverse against the appellant and he was fit for promotion to the next higher grade. He could not be superseded and deserved to be considered for promotion. Thus, we accept this appeal, set aside the impugned orders dated 17‑2‑1996, 11‑5‑1996 and 26‑6‑1996 and direct that the appellant may be considered for promotion as Draftsman Grade A within a period of three months henceforth. On promotion he will be entitled to regain his seniority and benefits with effect from 17‑2‑1996.

4. No order as to costs

5. Parties be informed H.B.T./124/Sr.F Appeal accepted.