1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Promotion

No civil servant has a claim to ask for promotion as of right and giving and refusing of promotion was a matter within exclusive discretionary domain of executive authority concerning matter. Sardar Rafique Mahmood for Appellant. Abdur Rashid Abbasi for Respondents. SARDAR MUHAMMAD SAJAWAL KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--This appeal is directed against the order No.SR/3339-46/88 dated 12-6-1988 issued by the Office of Secretary Revenue Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir by which Gul Muhammad Office Superintendent in Commissioner Office was promoted as Administrative Officer and was placed in Pay Scale No.

16. The appellant Abdur Rehman Mian is the Selection Grade, Stenographer of Commissioner Office and has challenged the impugned order on the basis of his seniority.

2. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellant held the post of selection grade Stenographer in Pay Scale B-16 (non-Gazetted) in Commissioner Office w.e.f.1-7-1983 while at the relevant time Gul Muhammad respondent No.3 held the post of Office Superintendent in Pay Scale B-16 in the same office. The appellant is aggrieved of the fact that because of his early entry in B.P.S No.16, he held the senior position among the ministerial staff members and was better qualified than the respondent Gul Muhammad for being promoted against the post of Administrative Officer in the aforesaid office. But without considering the merits of the appellant the order of promotion of respondent No.3 was made under the impugned order and he was placed in Pay Scale No.B-16 (Gazetted) after redesignating his post of Superintendent as Administrative Officer, in the said office.

3. It is prayed by the appellant that by accepting his appeal, the impugned order may be set aside and he may be promoted as Administrative Officer in Pay Scale (B-16) in the office of Commissioner Revenue Department w.e.f. 25-5-1986.

4. We have heard the arguments as were addressed at the Bar by the learned counsel of each party. We have carefully examined the record as was placed before us alongwith the appeal. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the order of promotion of respondent No.3 has adversely affected the terms and conditions of service of the appellant and he has been denied promotion despite the fact that he was senior to respondent No.3 and was comparatively better qualified for being promoted to the post of Administrative Officer. But there does not appear anything in Azad Jammu and Kashmir Revenue Department Ministerial Service Rules, 1984 entitling him to be eligible for being considered for his promotion to the post of Administrative Officer. The appellant relies upon some amendment purported to have been recently effected in Azad Jammu and Kashmir Revenue Department Ministerial Service Rules, 1984 referred to by which a selection grade Stenographer with three years service has also been made eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer in Pay Scale B-16 (Gazetted). It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that no such amendment was ever introduced in the Departmental Ministerial Service Rules, 1984 to entitle a selection grade Stenographer eligible for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer in Pay Scale No. B-16. The copy of Notification marked as purporting to be an amendment effected in the aforesaid rules is without number and date and apparently it does not lend any support to the contention of the appellant. It rather supports the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that in fact no amendment was carried out in Ministerial Service Rules making selection grade Stenographer eligible for promotion alongwith Office Superintendents of the Revenue Department.

5. We have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant but we do not feel ourselves inclined to accept this view that the appellant is an aggrieved civil servant and his rights for being considered for promotion are violated. The word "promotion" is defined in Rule 1 Kashmir Service Rules Vol. II as the appointment of a member of a service or a class of service in any category or grade to a higher category Dr grade of such service or class. On a careful analysis of this definition it can easily be inferred that what is essential to constitute a promotion is the appointment of a public servant from a lower category or class to a higher category or class of service. In the instant case the grade of service of both appellant and respondent No. 3 is the same although the respondent has been placed in a gazetted class of service. It is pertinent to note here that no civil servant has a claim to ask for promotion as of right and the giving or refusing of promotion is a matter which is within the exclusive discretionary domain of the executive authorities concerning the matter. Both the appellant and respondent No. 3 enjoy the same pay scale and we, therefore, hold the view that under the impugned order the terms and conditions of service of the appellant are not violated. The duties of an Office Superintendent and that of an Administrative Officer in an office being of supervisory nature are identical. The appellant must not entertain a grievance, because he is placed in a different cadre and under service rules referred to, he does not fulfil the qualifications for being considered to the post of Administrative Officer. The promotion of respondent No.3 has been ordered after selection of the respondent from among Office Superintendents and since the departmental rules do not prescribe the eligibility of the appellant to be considered for that promotion, the appellant is riot an aggrieved civil servant and his appeal merits dismissal. 6.The upshot of the above discussion is that appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to the costs. M.Y.H./99/Sr.A. Appeal dismissed.