1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑By this appeal the appellant questions the grant of promotion to respondent No. 3 on 7th January, 1971 to the post of Senior Clerk in supersession of the seniority of the appellant. The brief facts as far as relevant and material to this appeal are that the appellant joined the Civil Defence Department as Junior Clerk on 3rd October, 1953 and was promoted as Senior Clerk and assigned to the Rawalpindi Station. However, at Rawalpindi he requested to be transferred to Lahore and offered himself to be voluntarily reverted as Junior Clerk. His request was accepted and he was posted at Lahore Region against a vacancy of a Junior Clerk. He was again promoted as Senior Clerk on the 6th November, 1965 in Lahore and was eventually promoted as Assis tant in the year, 1975. Respondent No. 3 came to join the Department on 8th February, 1954 and was promoted as Senior Clerk on 1st July, 1961. He was promoted as such after consideration of his case vis‑a‑vis the appel lant on the ground that respondent No. 3 was a Graduate and his work has been quite satisfactory. The appellant thus appears to have raised no objection to the promotion of the appellant as Senior Clerk in the year, 1961 for quite a number of years., It was only in the year 1967 that he appealed before the Assistant Director, Civil Defence but he partly succeed ed to getting himself promoted as Senior Clerk with effect from 6th November, 1965. However the promotion granted to respondent No. 3 was not interfered with. He appears to have filed a further representation to the Director, Civil Defence which was rejected on 18th August, 1971. He further appears to have appealed to the Government which was also rejected on 30th October, 19'

76. It was after this decision that he preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal on 26th November, 1976. Govern ment Pleader Mr. A. G. Hamayun has raised the preliminary objection that the matter 4:9 far as the promotion was concerned stood decided in 1961 against which no representation was competent and thus the order having been passed long before 1st July, 1969 the appeal was incompetent. He also raised on the fact that the objection of the appellant relates to the grant of promotion to respondent No. 3 which had been ordered after due consideration at the case of the appellant as is apparent from Annexure `B' to this appeal filed by the appellant himself. The appeal was hit by Proviso (b) to section 4 of the Public Service Tribunal Act of 1974 which was to the following effect :‑ "No appeal shall lie to the Tribunal against an order or decision of departmental authorities determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed to a post or promoted to a higher grade." He also argued that since this representation was finally rejected in October, 1976 and no review was competent to the Government. The appeal on 16th November, 1976 was grossly barred by time. After hearing both the parties we are inclined to agree with the learned Government pleader. During the course of arguments it was concedes by the appellant that his sole grievance was against the wrong promotion granted to respondent No.

2. In our view the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to question the determination as to the fitness of a person to be promoted to a post was clearly barred by the proviso (b) reproduced above. The promotion was granted to respondent No. 3 after due considera tion of his case vis‑a‑vis the appellant. Thus the issue does not fall within our jurisdiction, and we decline to entertain the same. Even otherwise the appeal appears to be grossly barred by time. The matter appears to have been finally concluded at the Government level on 30th October, 1974. Any further attempt on the part of the appellant to invoke review jurisdic tion of the Government was futile and could not enlarge the limitation. Thus the appeal preferred in November, 1976 i.e. after the lapse o. about 2 years was evidently barred by time. In fact the appellant has not filed any application for condonation of the delay. Accordingly the appeal is held to be barred by limitation and also by proviso (b) to section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974. Consequently the appeal is dis missed with no orders as to cost. Appeal dismissed.