1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(i) Matriculate, (ii) Diploma from Govt. Vocational Institute for Women, (iii) Diploma from Government vocational Teachers Training Institute for Women, Lahore and (iv) Ten years teaching experience in a vocational trade in a recognized Institute. It is stated that while the Junior Instructors were promoted and appointed as Principal the appellant was ignored. The appellant submitted a representation and she was informed that according to the rules the Trade Instructors, who have not done their Matriculation are not eligible for promotion to the post of Principal according to the new rules in force. It is this order, which the appellant has assailed in the present appeal.

2. This appeal came up for preliminary hearing on 5‑7‑1987. The same was admitted to regular hearing and notices were issued to the respondents. The respondents have contested the appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as District Attorney, for the respondents and gone through the record. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal has argued: ‑ (i) Firstly, that since the appellant joined service a in the year 1960, therefore, her promotion will be governed by the Rules of 1961 and not by Punjab Education Department (Technical Wing), Service Rules, 1981. It is maintained that the respondents have illegally pressed into service the Rules of 1981. In this behalf reliance is placed on the case of Abdul Wahid Khan and four others v. Chief Conservator of Forests, Central Zone, Punjab and 8 others reported as 1986 P L C (C.S.) 828. (ii) Secondly, that the appellant has served honestly, diligently and has unblemished service career of 25 years, therefore, entitled to promotion.

3. On the other hand learned District Attorney has argued that the promotion is not a vested right and is to be governed by the latest rules holding field. It is submitted that the decision of this Tribunal relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant has since been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in appeals filed by the respondents. The learned D.A. has argued that appellant has not been ignored on account of bad record, therefore, the second point raised is irrelevant. It is argued with emphasis that the appellant was ignored for promotion as Principal only because she was under Matric and minimum qualification for the said post is Matric as prescribed in the Rules of 1981 and noted in the foregoing paragraphs.

4. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments on both the sides. This Tribunal in the precedent case relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant held that the rules pertaining to promotion cannot be given retrospective effect. The fate of this appeal hinges on the decision of point whether future promotion is an integral part of the terms and conditions of service, therefore, a vested right of civil servant or not?

5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the future promotion is an integral part of the terms and conditions and the same is to be governed in accordance with the law and rules in force prevalent at the time a civil servant joins service. It is added that the same cannot be altered or amended to the detriment and disadvantage of the civil servant. The learned counsel for the appellant maintained that he is fully supported in his submissions by the decision of this Tribunal referred to above. In this behalf he has referred to and heavily relied on following passages of the judgment:‑ "This notification further supports the claim of the appellants that enhancement of qualifications by notification of 1976 was unwarranted and militated against the terms and conditions of their service under which they were inducted regularly by Rules of 1941 and 1982. To elaborate this point further, it would be necessary to mention here that the earlier rules so mentioned above under which the appellants were inducted into service as Foresters and then promoted as Forest Rangers only require from them to possess a certificate in Forestry from Pakistan Forest School Ghoragali and Degree and Diploma which became a pre‑requisite for their promotion was an act of hardship absolutely unjustified in their case. The latest notification on the subject has removed the inequity which was the subject‑matter of appeal before this Tribunal at least to the extent that it has been recognised by the Government itself that the appellants' qualification of having only a certificate from Pakistan Forest School, Ghoragali plus their vast experience would be equal to the Degree or Diploma from a recognised University/Institute/School. This decision of the Government goes a long way to support our earlier decision on the subject that if any condition of service is changed that is only prospective in nature and would not affect the persons already inducted in service under the earlier Rules." I find that Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has consistently held that the present terms and conditions of service of a civil servant are limited to the office or the post which he, for the time being, holds and does not extend to promotion to higher or any other post. The rights of the civil servant to any such post are only in the prospectus and not related to the existing 'terms and conditions'. In this behalf reference could be conveniently made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Muhammad Umar Malik and others v. Federal Service Tribunal and others and reported as P L D 1987 SC

172. The relevant portion is as under:‑ "Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate, when called upon to address arguments on merits, urged that the rules of promotion should not have been changed so as to affect adversely those already on the eligibilities list i. e. the combined list of the U . D . Cs. and S. G. Cs. In other words he was claiming a vested right in promotion for all the U . D . Cs. borne on the joint cadre on the date of its separation. The position of law on the subject is clear in view of numerous decisions of this Court, e.g. Government of West Pakistan v. Fida Muhammad Khan P L D 1960 S C 45, Central Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistan v. Asad Ahmad Khan P L D 1960 S C 81, Province of West Pakistan v. Muhammad Akhtar P L D 1962 S C 428, Manzur Ahmad v. Muhammad Ishaq P L D 1964 S C

17. No such vested right in promotion or rules determining eligibility for promotion exists."

6. I am of the considered view, of course after going through the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court, that even this appeal is incompetent because the right to promotion is not part of terms and conditions of service. Therefore, the appellant cannot maintain the present appeal. I may refer to the following observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this behalf in case of Muhammad Insha Ullah and others v. Chief Conservator of Forests (P&E), Punjab and others PLD 1988 S C 155:‑ "Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 provides that any civil servant aggrieved by any final order whether original or appellate made by a departmental authority in respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service, may within thirty days of communication of such order to him or within six months of the establishment of the appropriate Tribunal whichever is later prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. In view of this provision, it is necessary that the appeal to the Tribunal must relate to the terms and conditions of the service." Now taking up the issue of rules whether the same are to be prospective or retrospective, it has been clearly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while referring the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Abdul Wahid Khan and relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant that the rules relevant, applicable and which will govern the promotion will be the latest rules. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court reads as under:‑ "From this observation, it was concluded that on the date of entry, the rule applicable to him with regard to prospects of promotion, acquired fixity and finality qua him. It has not been indicated upto what level this finality enures. Could it be said that on their entry as Foresters or Deputy Rangers, they acquired a right in keeping the rules intact upto the promotion as Chief Conservator of Forests or was it limited to the next higher grade. In any case, the view taken by the Tribunal is against the law laid down by this Court with regard to the meaning and scope of terms and conditions of service. In the case of Central Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistan v. Asad Ahmad Khan, it was held that Government was entitled to make rules in the interest of efficiency of service, that the rule of promotion could be changed without in any manner affecting the right of those yet to be promoted." The other portion of the judgment of Supreme Court having direct bearing on the decision of the present appeal reads as under:‑ "In the case of Muhammad Umar Malik v . Federal Service Tribunal, the argument that the rules of promotion should not have been changed so as to affect adversely those already on the eligibility list, was rejected on the ground that no such vested right in promotion rules existed in the case of those not yet promoted."

7. Now taking up the second point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant I agree with the learned District Attorney that the argument is irrelevant because the appellant has not been ignored on account of some bad work or adverse entry. The learned counsel for the appellant in this context submitted that she has honestly, diligently and zealously served the Department and it is too harsh to ignore her. But I need not say more words but I will only refer to the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Insha Ullah and others. The same reads as under:‑ "It cannot be said that a rule which grants weightage to academic qualifications against experience is unreasonable and harsh. With the increasing emphasis on specialization and improved techniques and knowledge, the academic qualifications may be granted greater weightage than the actual experience on the job without such qualifications. There was, therefore, nothing unreasonable or manifestly oppressive."

8. The result is that the appeal fails both on merits as well as being incompetent. There is no order as to the costs. S.Q./177/Sr.P Appeal dismissed.