1999 PLP 1947 (SCMR)

SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.

Both the above appeal and the petition filed by Ahmed. Ali appellant and Fida Hussain petitioner are directed against the judgment and order, dated 1-4-1993 delivered by the Federal Service Tribunal whereby their appeals claiming promotion against the quota of promotees were dismissed.

2. The facts of the case are that on 25-10-1971 appellant Ahmed Ali joined the Public Works Department, Northern Areas in the capacity of Sub-Engineer. On 25-10-1984 he was promoted as Assistant Engineer (B-16). Fida Hussain petitioner was appointed as such on 25-4-1984. Under the recruitment rules on 17-8-1980 appellant Ahmed Ali could be eligible for promotion as Assistant Executive Engineer (B-17) on completion of 3 year's service in B-16 as Assistant Engineer. On the basis of this calculation the appellant was eligible for such promotion on'25-4-1987. Under the rules of 1980, 50% of the posts of Executive Engineers were to be filled by promotion and the remaining 50% by direct recruitments, On 25-7-1990 respondents Nos.3 to 9 were appointed .as Assistant Executive Engineers. The appellant and the' petitioner made' a representation against the said appointment to the Prime Minister of Pakistan on 8-8-1990, but the representation was rejected and, thus, the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal was invoked. In the appeal before the Tribunal, it was prayed that the recruitment of the respondents Nos.3 to 9 as Assistant Executive Engineers on ad hoc basis against the quota reserved for promotees be set aside and the appellant and the petitioner should be considered for appointment against two of the said posts. In support of this claim, reliance was placed upon rules dated 17-8-1980 under which, as stated above, 50% of the posts of Assistant Executive Engineers were reserved for promotees. Precisely, it was contended that from the period of commencement from 1981 there were 35 posts and only 7 of them have been allocated to the promotees while the rest of the posts were filled through direct recruitment. It was further contended that 9 more posts of the Assistant Executive Engineers were also filled through direct recruitment vide order dated 12-8-1987., In this way in 1987 there were about 36/37 posts and only 50% percent of the same could have been filled through direct recruitment whereas the rest ought to have been allocated to the promotees and - it was, thus, contended that the appointment of respondents Nos.3 to 9 vide order dated 25-7-1990 was illegal and was violative of the rules.

3. The Federal Service Tribunal noted that the order dated 12-8-1987 whereby 9 Assistant Executive Engineers were recruited directly had not been challenged by the appellant and the petitioner, while before the Tribunal only the order dated 25-7-1990 whereby 9 more posts were filled through direct recruitments had been assailed. The Tribunal further noted that the relief claimed by the appellant and the petitioner was confined only against recruitments of respondents Nos.3 to 9 against direct quota made on 25-7-1990 while no challenge had been thrown to the direct recruitment made in pursuance of the order dated 12-3-1987.

4. It may be stated here that the rules dated 17-8-1990 as herein before mentioned were amended through notification dated 15-5-1990 and the 'quota of the promotees was reduced from 50% to 20% for promotion and 80% of the posts were reserved for direct recruits. The case of the department before the Tribunal was that prior to 12-8-1987 there were 35 posts in B-17 and the sanctioned strength was 44 inclusive of the appointment of 9 Assistant Executive Engineers on ad hoc basis vide order dated 12-8-1987. Out of the 44 posts, 7 were held by promotees while 37 posts had been filled through direct recruitment. The Tribunal rightly concluded that as far as the appointment of 9 Assistant Executive Engineers through direct recruitment made on 12-8-1987 was concerned, the same could not be assailed inasmuch as no representation had been made against the same nor any appeal had been filed before the Tribunal.

5. The crucial question on which leave was also granted was the legality of the order dated 25-7-1990 under which 9 Assistant Executive Engineers were directly recruited. It was contended that their appointment was violative of the rule's inasmuch as a right had accrued to the appellant and the petitioner in pursuance of the 1980 rules to claim the promotion. Precisely it was contended that the said rules had reserved a quota of 50 % of posts to be filled by promotees and thus the appellant and the petitioner had a right to be considered for promotion and the subsequent rules framed in 1990 could not have taken away their vested right. We are afraid the contention is devoid of force. No doubt under the 1980 rules the quota for promotion for those in service was 50%, but the same was changed through the amendment in the rules made by the competent Authority under which this quota was reduced' from 50% to 20%. The argument that the right of the appellant and the petitioner under the aforesaid ratio of the quota under the 1980 rules remains intact despite the fact that the same had been amended is fallacious. We are fortified in this view by the judgments of this Court reported as Ch. Muhammad Insha Allah and others v. Chief Conservator of Forest (P&E), Punjab and others (PLD 1988 SC 155) and Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal and others v. The Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore and others (1997 SCMR 1043).

6. The promotion policy and the fixation of quota between the direct recruits and the promotees is to be regulated by the competent Authority on the basis of rules to be framed by it. It may be reiterated here that none has a vested right to claim promotion. In the present case, as stated hereinbefore, the 1980 rules were amended in accordance with law and by the competent Authority. Therefore, the policy of promotion is to be regulated by the new rules and the appellant and the petitioner cannot claim a right, which has been taken away by the amended rules.

7. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in these cases and the same are hereby dismissed. H.B.T./A-153/S Petition & appeal dismissed