1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order of Commissioner, D. G. Khan Division, D. G. Khan dated 1‑8‑1982, be set aside and the appellant be favoured with pro forma promotion with alt fringe/monetary benefits retrospectively. He has also prayed that the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 be declared junior to him as Superintendent.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Assistant in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, D. G. Khan. A selection for promotion to the post of the Superintendent was held in July 1982. The appellant was interviewed by the Divisional Promotion Committee alongwith others. The consequential order of promotion was issued by the Commissioner, D. G. Khan Division, D. Cr. Khan, vide his order dated 1‑8‑1982. The appellant's name was not included in this order. Hence this appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant, Sardar Asif Saeed Khosa, Advocate, while arguing the case has submitted that the appellant had a good service record but he was not recommended for promotion as Superintendent by the Divisional Promotion Committee (Annexure `A'). According to the learned counsel for the appellant, this was due to the reason that the appellant was administered a warning in the year 1982. He argued that the warning is not a penalty as laid down under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1955 and also as per instructions issued by the S&GA Department No. S (R) 1155, 4‑9/59

9. O‑XIII dated 14‑5‑1962, this warning could not stand in his way for his promotion. He further submitted that on account of this warning, the service record of the appellant should have not been taken as adverse, as the same warning was not considered adverse for posting him as HVC on 26‑6‑1982 while the Divisional Promotion Committee had considered his case of promotion on a later date i.e. 1‑7‑1982. He also submitted that as this warning was not conveyed to the appellant and he was not given a chance to represent against it, hence this warning could in no way be considered as an adverse record against the appellant. The similar warning given to Mr. Muhammad Jahangir, Head Clerk was withdrawn by the Commissioner. He also placed reliance upon S & OAD, instruction No. SOIV (S & GAD)‑1‑75/67 (Policy) dated 7‑1‑1969. Conclud ing his arguments the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that thus the appellant has been ignored for his promotion by the Divisional Promotion Committee on 1‑7‑1982, illegally, unlawfully and without applying the mind judiciously and injustice has been done to the appellant and he prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents and the learned District Attorney rebutted the above arguments by submitting that this is a case of supersession of the appellant. He was duly considered by the Divi sional Promotion Committee on 1‑7‑1982 and was not considered fit for promotion, and he was thus rightly superseded. They also argued that this is a matter of determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to be pro moted to a higher post, hence, this is not within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal as per section 4 (1) (b) of the Punjab Service Tribunal's Act, 1974 and this appeal does not fall under the purview of the Tribunal. This view point of the learned counsel for the respondents was rebutted by the learned counsel for the appellant, by submitting that as the appellant has been ignored on illegal/unlawful grounds hence the minutes of the Divisional Promotion Committee held on 1‑7‑1982, are void ab initio and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to interfere into the matter and the case was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, as the. impugned order is based on the recommendation of the Promotion Committee which were illegal and thus the impugned order is void.

6. I have given my anxious thought to the parties and have also perused the record of this case. I find that the appellant was duly consi dered for promotion by the Divisional Promotion Committee, headed bar the Commissioner, D. G. Khan Division, and assisted by the Additional Commissioner (R), D. G. Khan and A. C. (G). D. G. Khan, as members. The Committee had duly scrutinized the service record of the appellant and he was not considered fit for promotion as Superintendent. The last three paras of the minutes of the Divisional Promotion Committee held on 1‑7‑1982, are reproduced below:‑ Mr. Muhammad Qasim Ali and Abdul Latif are the senior most Assistants and were found to have good service record. The Committee unanimously approved the promotion of ‑these two officials to the post of Superintendent. The Committee further observed that as Mr. Ibrahim Azad was working as Assistant in Commissioner's office, Mul.tan, he was not eligible for appointment in Commissioner's office, D. G. Khan Division by promotion under the West Pakistan Revenue Department (Commissioner's Office) Ministerial Service Rules, 1964. The character Rolls of Messrs Rehmatullah and Muhammad Jahangir contained adverse entries and therefore, they have not been consi dered fit for promotion as Superintendent. The Committee also approved that the next four candidates namely Mr. Abdul Hameed, Abdul Jabbar, Malik Niaz Ahmed Lid Qazi Muhammad Nawaz in that order of seniority, may be placed on waiting list and posted as Superintendents as and when vacancies occur in the normal course."

7. Thus it is clear that the appellant was duly considered for promotion for the post of Superintendent but he was not considered fit f for the same. Thus I hold that there is no merit in this case, as the appellant was duly considered for promotion but was superseded on merits.

8. Keeping in view the above analysis, there is no force in this appeal which is dismissed as such, There is no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.