2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

JAVED IQBAL, J.

This appeal with leave of the court is directed against judgment dated 30-5-2005 whereby the appeal of Faiz Muhammad (respondent) has been accepted.

2. Leave to appeal was granted by means of order dated 26-1-2006 which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-- "The learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab, submitted, inter alia, that in view of the policy formulated by the Government of the Punjab, Service and General Administration Department (Regulation Wing) on 19-4-2003. The respondent could not claim the pro forma promotion from back date particularly when no other officer junior to him had been promoted as Horticultural Officer of the Agriculture Department. Reliance was placed on the cases of Government of Pakistan through Establishment Division Islamabad and 7 others v. Hameed Akhtar Niazi Academy of Administrative, Training Walton, Lahore and others (2003 PLC (C.S.) 212) and Rizwan Ashraf v. Capital Development Authority through its Chairman, Islamabad and another (2004 PLC (C.S.) 724). Leave to appeal is granted to consider the above and other submissions of the learned Law Officer".

3. Mr. Saeed Yousaf Khan, learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab entered appearance on behalf of Government of the Punjab (appellant) and contended vehemently that legal and factual aspects of the controversy have not been appreciated in its true perspective which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. In order to substantiate the said contention it is argued that promotion cannot be allowed with retrospective effect and the verdict to this effect by learned Service Tribunal is not in consonance with the provisions as enumerated in Rule 9(2) of the Punjab Civil Servant (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. It is however, admitted by learned Additional Advocate-General that Mr. Riffat Farooq, Horticultural Officer stood retired on 9-1-2003 and thereafter the promotion case of respondent was placed on 6-7-2004 before Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting for considering promotion of the respondent against vacant post of Horticultural Officer and respondent was promoted as Horticultural Officer (BS-18) on the same date and after attaining the age of superannuation on 12-7-2004 he stood retired. It is next contended that proforma promotion cannot claim as a matter of right and besides that no junior to the respondent was promoted hence the respondent had no cause of action which escaped the notice of learned Punjab Service Tribunal causing serious prejudice against the appellants. Despite notice respondent remained absent.

4. We have carefully examined the above mentioned contentions in the light of relevant provisions of law, perused the record made available and the judgment impugned carefully. It mainly prevailed upon the learned Service Tribunal that pro forma promotion can be claimed as a matter of right which we are afraid is not in consonance with the policy dated 19-4-2003 which has made it abundant clear in the said policy that a case of pro forma promotion could only be considered where a Civil Servant has been superseded by promoting his junior officer without any reason which escaped the notice of learned Service Tribunal as admittedly no junior officer to the respondent was ever promoted hence the question of supersession of the respondent did not arise.

5. The case of respondent has been examined on the touch stone of the criterion as laid down in Rule 9(2) of the Punjab Civil Servant (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, the promotion policy dated 19-4-2003 and no case for pro forma promotion is made out. The promotion policy cannot be made applicable in the case of respondent as admittedly no junior officer to him was promoted and resultantly the right to get departmental promotion was never occurred in favour of respondent. There is no denial the fact that predecessor of respondent stood retired on 9-1-2003 and after completion of necessary formalities the promotion case of respondent was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 6-7-2004 and respondent was promoted. It appears that there is some delay in convening the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee but it must be kept in view that convening of meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee cannot be called frequently because consideration for promotion does not involve only the question of seniority but competency, rectitude and antecedent and examination of official record as promotion cannot be made in a mechanical manner hence no time limit can be imposed for convening the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee which, however, should be held within a reasonable time. It is well settled by now that there is no vested right in promotion or rules determining the eligibility for promotion. In this regard, we are fortified by the dictum laid down in case titled Government of the Punjab v. Muhammad Awais Shahid (1991 SCMR 696). It is worth mentioning that "as regards claim to promotion or pro forma promotion, what the civil servant could claim under the law was, that he should be considered when question of promotion was taken up. Civil servant, could not call upon the Service Tribunal to direct the department to fill the promotion post forthwith or on a particular date and not to keep it vacant or under consideration". Muhammad Iqbal v. Saeeda Bano (1991 SCMR 1559).

6. In the light of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appeal is accepted, judgment impugned set aside and 6-7-2004 shall be considered as date of promotion. M.H./S-40/SC Appeal allowe