1995 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SAIDUZLAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 7‑6‑1994 whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed in limine the service appeal filed by the petitioner holding it to be bared under the provisions of section 4(1) proviso (b) of the Service Tribunal Act 1973. The learned counsel for the petitioner in seeking leave to appeal contended before us that the view taken by the learned Tribunal was not correct as the petitioner was not seeking his promotion through the appeal filed before the Tribunal. The learned counsel referred us to the prayer in the appeal which is as follows: "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the appeal may kindly be accepted, the impugned order of promotion of Respondents Nos. 4 to 7 may be held to be illegal, incompetent and without any legal effect, on account of their being ineligible for promotion and junior to the appellant who also stands approved for promotion and he may be ordered to be promoted from the same date from which they were promoted with all consequential benefits. It is further prayed that any other relief which this Hon ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper may also be ordered:" The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the appeal the petitioner had contended that the promotion of respondents Nos. 4 to 7 in the present petition, was illegal as they were ineligible for promotion and were also junior to the petitioner in service, The learned counsel for the petitioner however, conceded before us that in the provisional seniority list issued by the department, the petitioner is shown junior to respondents Nos. 4 to 7 and that his representation against the provisional seniority list is still pending decision before the departmental authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred us to the minutes of the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee‑I (D.P.C.) in which respondents Nos. 4 to 7 as well as the petitioner were cleared for promotion to the next post namely, Assistant Director (BPS‑17). The learned counsel accordingly, contended that as the petitioner was cleared alongwith respondents Nos. 4 to 7 for promotion as Assistant Director (BPS‑17), he being senior should have been promoted, and therefore, promotion of respondents Nos. 4 to 7 without promoting the. petitioner, was illegal and without jurisdiction. We have already referred earlier that in the combined seniority list issued by the department and which according to the petitioner is a provisional seniority list, the petitioner was shown as junior to respondents Nos. 4 to 7, therefore, until such time the seniority claimed by the petitioner was allowed by the department the petitioner cannot claim his promotion over and above respondents Nos. 4 to 7 on the basis of seniority. The appeal of the petitioner before the Tribunal in the absence of determination of his claim of seniority over respondents Nos. 4 to 7, therefore, could not succeed. No case for interference with the order of A Service Tribunal is made out. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. AA./M‑2239/S Petition dismissed.