1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MALIK MUHAMMAD PARVEZ KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--Appellant assailed the impugned order dated 1-6-1987 vide which he was reverted from the post of Excise and Taxation Inspector to that of Senior Clerk in the Establishment. According to him he joined the department as a Junior Clerk in the year, 1967 and from that time onward he had been performing his duties honestly and efficiently. He was promoted to the post of Inspector on 23-6-1986 at the recommendations of the Departmental Selection Committee and alongwith him one Malik Muhammad Zahir was recruited from direct quota. After a year however the appellant was reverted to his original post while Malik Muhammad Zahir was allowed to continue as such. However an incumbent of the department went on earned leave later on and the appellant was again promoted in his place on 4-6-1987. The department violated its own rules by ordering the reversion of the appellant. He preferred an appeal to .the concerned Minister but instead of taking any positive action, an enquiry was conducted against him as to why he has approached the Minister to seek his redress. The reversion of the appellant is illegal, void, mala fide, capricious, arbitrary and against law and cannons of justice and equity. Respondents when served, denied the claim of the appellant by saying that they have complied with the rules which formulate a policy for the promotees and the direct employees against quota of 50% each and the appointment of Malik Muhammad Zahir was against the quota reserved for the direct recruits. If he was kept in service it in no way affected the rights of the appellant adversely, but no junior .person than the appellant was promoted by superseding him. During the pendency of the appeal, it so happened that Malik Muhammad Zahir also prayed for his impleadment as a party in the case as according to him his valuable rights would be affected in case he is not given an opportunity to defend himself, so he was also impleaded as a party and was asked to submit the written statement. It was added by new respondent that appellant has got no locus standi, that the appeal is vague and mala fide, that it is barred by time and that it is in competent. Further he submitted that not the appellant but one Gulistan was senior to him and under the rules not he but Gulistan should have filed the appeal. His appeal is therefore, incompetent. Record perused and arguments heard. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that he filed appeal to the concerned Minister and if it was not addressed to the proper forum it was incumbent upon him to send the appeal to the next higher officer. In the present case he was respondent No.l and according to him the appeal was sent by the Minister to respondent No.l for disposal. Further he argued that appellant was approved by the Departmental Promotion Committee for the post of Inspector, Excise & Taxation and he could not in any way be reverted to his substantive post of Senior Clerk and instead the services of respondent No.5 should have been dispensed with as he happened to be junior than the appellant. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No.5 argued that the department followed the rules in promoting the appellant and appointing respondent No.5 to the post of Inspector, Excise & Taxation. No infringement 'of rules was made by the official respondents. 50% quota was fixed for both sets of employees. Official respondents followed the said policy in letter and spirit. Besides this the promotion of the appellant was for the particular task and the order of promotion would show that it was from 1-7-1986 to 31-5-1987 (actually the period is 11 months and not one year as given in order dated 23-6-1986). We have gone through the record and the arguments section 4, subsection (b)(i) of the N.-W.F.P. Service. Tribunal Act, 1974 lays down that this 'Tribunal is debarred to adjudicate upon the matter of promotion/reversion. It is the prerogative of the departmental authority and Tribunal could not interfere with it. The same question of promotion/reversion is involved in the present case and the Tribunal has nothing to do with such like disputes. Over and above this the promotion of the appellant was for a specified purpose and when it was obtained, he was reverted to his own cadre/grade. No injustice was done to him. The temporary promotion does not confer upon an employee the right to claim the same permanently. The official respondents adhered to the quota fixed by the Government. They have not violated it. The result is that the present appeal is dismissed but tire parties are left to bear their own costs and file be consigned to the record room. M.Z.S./115/Sr.N Appeal dismissed.