1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.‑This is a petition for special leave from a revisional order dated 28th of February, 1979 passed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court at Lahore arising out of a suit filed by the present petitioner against the respondent herein in a service matter under the Punjab Government.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Research Assistant Grade III on the 6th of August 1954, in the Directorate Land Reclamation of the Government of Punjab. Afterwards, on the 6th of April, 1960, he was promoted as Assistant Research Officer on the basis of seniority and merit for six months on ad hoc basis. Subsequently, however the Punjab Public Service Commission promoted one Mr. Zakria to the post. The petitioner made representation against it to the Public Service Commission which was partially accepted and the Commission directed the Department to send a fresh proposal alongwith the seniority list of the Directorate Land Reclamation with retrospective effect from 1960. In furnishing the seniority list Niamatullah Khan and Abdur Rahim (defendants Nos. 2 and 3) were shown as seniors to the petitioner by the Department, although, according to him, both of them had lost their lien in the Directorate. The petitioner therefore, made a representation against it and also filed his appeal but without any success. .

3. In these circumstances he then filed a suit impleading Niamatullah Khan and Abdur Rahim as defendants Nos. 2 and 3 with the following prayers made by him (1) That the plaintiff‑petitioner is senior to defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and senior most in the Directorate Land Reclamation ; (2) That the Secretary Irrigation and Power Department be ordered to promote the petitioner retrospectively from January 1961, to November 1962, as Assistant Research Officer, Soil Survey Taunsa, and onward as Assistant Research Officer, Soil, in the Directorate Land Recla mation, and the benefits attached to these posts may also be granted to him. The proceedings were taken ex parte against defendants Nos. 2 and 3 but this was contested by defendant‑respondent No. 1 inter alia, on the grounds that it was not maintainable and also because the plaintiff had no lacus standi and cause of action to sue the Government. The trial Court then framed the following issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties :‑ (1) Whether the suit is not maintainable? O. P. D. (2) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi or action? O. P. D. (3) Whether the plaintiff is senior to defendants Nos. 2 and ? O. P. P. (4) Relief.

4. On the 19th of May, 1977, the learned Civil Judge First Class, Lahore decreed the suit of the plaintiff‑petitioner against the defendants. On Issues Nos. 1 and 2 he found in favour of the plaintiff and held that his suit was maintainable under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act and that he had a locus standi to sue as an aggrieved person against the unequal treatment meted to him contrary to the protection afforded by the Constitu tion. On the merits under Issue No. 3 the Court was of the opinion that plaintiff‑petitioner was senior as compared to defendants Nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that they had already lost their lien in the Directorate of Land Reclamation.

5. Respondent, the Province of Punjab, went up in appeal against the judgment and decree. On the 6th February, 1978, the Additional District Judge, Lahore accepted the appeal. He observed that the plaintiff had filed his suit mainly to establish his seniority which was a matter falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal established under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act VIII of 1974. His claim to promotion was dependent upon and flows from establishing his seniority. Moreover, the promotion could not be claimed by him as a matter of right and the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit which was dismissed on these short grounds alone.

6. Dissatisfied, the plaintiff petitioner went up in revision against the judgment and decree thus passed by the lower appellate Court. But a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed the revision on the 28th of February, 1979. He was of the opinion that the question of seniority of the plaintiff was a matter appealable to the Service Tribunal having exclusive jurisdiction. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 had been promoted simply on the finding that they were senior to him against which he had failed to go up in appeal before the Tribunal. Moreover, the promotion is not a matter of any vested right and it was admitted in the plaint that this question had already been decided against him and his departmental representation/appeal had also been rejected by the Director of Land Reclamation on the 27th of August, 1975. Therefore, in the opinion of the learned Judge in Chambers nothing was left for the petitioner to approach to the civil Court.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Chapter II of the Punjab Civil Servants Act VIII of 1974 is headed as and deals with the terms and conditions of service of civil servants. Section 7 included in this Chapter deals with the matter bf seniority of the civil servants and section 8 with their promotion. This would show that the seniority and promotion of the civil servants are included in and pertain to the terms and conditions of their service. Under section 3 of the Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act of 1974, an Administrative Tribunal has been set up having exclusive jurisdiction in respect of matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants including disciplinary matters. According to section 4 of the Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act IX of 1974, 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 including disciplinary matter may, within thirty days of the communication of such order to him, or within six months of the establishment of the appropriate Tribunal whichever is later, prefer as appeal to the Tribunal. In this connection, inter alia, the proviso (b) to this section further lays down that no appeal shall lie to a Tribunal against as order or decision of a departmental authority determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed to or hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher post or grade. At the same time Article 212(2) or the Constitution lays down that where any Administrative Court or Tribunal is established, no other Court shall grant an injunction, make any order or entertain any proceedings in respect of any matter to which the jurisdiction of such Administrative Court or Tribunal extends. It is therefore, evident that an Administrative Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to hear disputes in these matters. In this view of the matter the High Court was justified in holding that the suit of the plaintiff‑petitioner was incompetent. The petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.