2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

With the concurrence of the learned counsel for the parties it is being treated as an admitted case.

2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this Constitutional petition are that two posts of Superintendents had fallen vacant in Agricultural Mechanization Research Institution, (AMRI) Multan. According to the service recruitment rules of AMRI, Assistants, Accounts Assistants and Senior Scale Stenographers were eligible for promotion against the said vacancies. Petitioner is Senior Scale Stenographer and was at serial No. 1 of the combined seniority list whereas Ahmed Bakhsh Farooqi, Accounts Assistant and Rana Muhammad Iqbal, Assistant (respondent No.2) were respectively at serial No.2 and 3.

3. Vide order dated 22-3-1995 passed by respondent No.1 the aforesaid Ahmad Bakhsh Farooqi and respondent No.2 were-promoted against the aforesaid two vacant posts. The said order of promotion to the extent of respondent No.2 was assailed by the petitioner before the Punjab Service Tribunal which accepted his appeal and remanded the case to the Secretary, Agricultural Department for re-consideration and re-examination of the case. After re-examination of the case, the aforesaid order of promotion of respondent No.2 was set aside by the Secretary vide his order dated 26-12-2001 and that order 'was implemented by respondent No.1 vide his order dated 31-1-2002 whereby respondent No.2 was reverted to his original post as Assistant.

4. Aggrieved thereby respondent No.2 filed a petition in the Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan and he also moved a petition to the Chief Minister, Punjab which was forwarded to respondent No. 1 for disposal in accordance with rules. Respondent No.2 thereafter withdrew his petition from the Punjab Labour Court No.9.

5. Respondent No. 1 accepted the aforesaid petition of respondent No.2 vide order dated 8-1-2003 and accordingly modified his order dated 31-1-2002 to the extent of setting aside of the order granting pro forma promotion to respondent No.2 and recalled the same regarding his reversion.

6. The aforesaid order passed by respondent No. 1 is assailed in this writ petition on the grounds that it was passed under political pressure of the Chief Minister; that the said order amounted to review of the previous order which was not permissible under-the law and that after passing of the order by the Secretary, light of promotion had accrued to the petitioner which has been denied by the impugned order.

7. Prayer in the writ petition is that the impugned order be declared as void, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.

8. Writ petition is strongly opposed by counsel for the respondents. Arguments heard. Writ petition and the annexures appended therewith perused.

9. From a perusal of the comments and its annexures it is evident' that respondent No.2 was promoted on officiating basis through an; earlier order dated 30-5-1994 and it was vide this order that Ahmad Bakhsh Farooqi was also promoted on regular basis whereas petitioner, who was working as Superintendent on officiating basis was reverted to his original post as Senior Scale stenographer due to his option and also for the reason that at that time he had not cleared departmental account examination which was a prerequisite for promotion to the post of Superintendent.

10. Vide order dated 22-3-1995 the said promotion of respondent No.2 was regularized and in addition thereto he was also allowed pro forma promotion w.e.f. 22-2-1993. On remand from Punjab Service; Tribunal, the Secretary, Agriculture had vide his order dated 26-12-2001 ' set aside the order dated 24-3-1995 only to the extent of granting pro forma promotion but his regular promotion was not disturbed. However, while implementing the aforesaid order, respondent No.1 had also reverted respondent No.2 instead of setting aside the order only to the' extent of his pro forma promotion. The said order was letter on rectified and corrected by him vide the impugned order which is not a judicial order but is merely an administrative/executive order whereby order of the Secretary was implemented in letter and spirit. The said order of the Secretary, was not assailed by the writ petitioner. Right of promotion had not accrued to the petitioner as regular promotion of respondent No.2 was not-set aside by the Secretary, Agriculture.

11. As substantial justice was done, interference in writ jurisdiction is not warranted. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed H.B.T./M-2283/L Petition dismissed.