1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Women/ Agro‑Technical) relevant field. Or 3 (BPS‑17) (ii) Trained Graduate years' service as Teacher (Selection TGT (B‑17) Grade B‑17) F.G. Schools.

6. Asstt. Director/ (i) Admn Officer 3 years' service in Admn/ Budget/ ACR/ (BPS‑16) BPS‑16 in the Coord.) (BPS‑17). relevant field. (ii) Superintendent (BPS‑16)

4. The petitioner's case is that he was serving as Administrative Officer in BPS‑16 and had three years' service to his credit and was, therefore, eligible for appointment as Assistant Director. According to him, Mst. Nasreen Riaz was not serving as Administrative Officer but was employed as a teacher. The petitioner submitted that Mst. Nasreen Riaz was not qualified to be appointed as Assistant Director because she was not a trained graduate teacher (T.G.T.) to which reference has been made in the said rules.

5. On the other hand, the plea of Mst. Nasreen Riaz is that the post in question was a newly created one and was not governed by the said rules. According to her, therefore, no exception could be taken to her appointment. It was conceded by her learned counsel that she was not a trained graduate teacher. He also informed us that she has since been promoted, on the teaching side, in BPS‑18, although the post to which the present dispute relates is in BPS‑17.

6. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 endorsed arguments of the learned counsel for respondent No. 4, Mst. Nasreen Riaz. He also invited our attention to Letter No. F.A.'s Org. U.O. No. F.6(10) DFA (Edu)/91‑886, dated 11‑3‑1993, issued by the Government of Pakistan, Finance Division, F.A.'s Organization (Education). By this letter, the Ministry of Finance sanctioned the post of Assistant Director at the request made by Mr. Manzur Hussain, Additional Secretary, Establishment Division, Cabinet Secretariat, Islamabad, in his U.O. No. 8/5/93‑R.1, dated 27‑2‑1993. Besides, he placed on record notings etc., bearing No. 842/93‑DS(MS), Government of ‑Pakistan, Ministry of Education (F.I. Wing), to support his plea that the post in question was a newly created one.

7. It is clear from the letter of the Establishment Division as well as the notings, etc., alluded to above, that the post in question had been created for administrative purposes. Although, it is a new post, the rules, of which an excerpt has been reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment, would apply to the said post as well. Those rules do take care of Assistant Director dealing with administration. Therefore, they will govern the newly created post of Assistant Director also which has been provided to improve the administration of educational institutions of the Federal Government in the Capital area of Islamabad. According to Item .6 of the said tales, the petitioner being Administrative Officer in BPS‑16 is eligible for appointment as Assistant Director on the administration side. It is not disputed that he had put in three years' service in the relevant field when he aspired for the post in dispute. As against this, Mst. Nasreen Riaz is not qualified for the said post. She is also not qualified for the post of Assistant Director (Development/Academic Women/Agro‑Technical) because, admittedly, she is not a trained graduate teacher. Thus, looked from any angle, she could not be appointed as Assistant Director.

9. In its judgment, under challenge, it has also been observed by the learned Tribunal that the dispute raised before it by the petitioner related to the question of promotion and the appeal was, therefore, not competent under proviso (b) to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. That provision of law is in respect of question of fitness' or otherwise for promotion. The petitioner was not promoted against the post in question due to the fact that he was not found fit for promotion to the said post due to poor record, etc., but on the ground that he was not eligible for promotion. This is clear from the observation of the learned Tribunal to the effect that "the appellant is not qualified as it is specifically mentioned that he should have five years' service in BPS‑16 in the relevant post". This view of the learned Tribunal regarding the length of experience is also misconceived because according to the aforesaid rules, he was required to possess three years' service in BPS‑16 in the relevant field for claiming post mentioned against Item 6 ibid. Also, the question whether a person is eligible or qualified to be considered for promotion to a post is different from the question of his fitness for such promotion. This proposition, which has the backing of plethora. of case‑law, was also not refuted by learned counsel for the respondents. In our opinion, therefore, the petitioner's case was not hit by proviso to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act nor did he lack the requisite experience for claiming the post in question.

10. Resultantly, we hold that the petitioner was qualified to be considered for promotion to the disputed post of Assistant Director. The authorities concerned shall, therefore, consider him for promotion as such. Whether or not he is fit to be promoted to the said post, keeping in view his record, etc. is a question which will be determined by the said authorities in their own wisdom; and we hope that this will be done 'by them justly and fairly. As for Mst. Nasreen Riaz, we hold that she is not eligible to be appointed to the post of Assistant Director presently held by her.

11. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs. A.A./Z‑210/S. Order accordingly.