1972 PLP 323 (SCMR)

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑The petitioner in this case was originally employed on the 2nd of December 1948 as Darogha Tab Bazari, a post on the Administrative side, in the Municipal Committee, Khanpur, District Rahimyar Khan, in the grade of Rs. 25‑1‑45, as non‑Matriculate. He, however, gradually worked his way up and on the 17th of January 1953 was appointed as Accountant in the same Municipal Committee in the grade of Rs. 76‑6‑105‑7‑

175. He continued in that grade as Ac countant even after the integration of Bahawalpur State into West Pakistan and the constitution of the Municipal Service in 1964. In the latter service, he was equated in the junior Class II grade as Accountant against the recommendation of the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division. Nevertheless, the Commissioner, by his order of the 29th of November 1969, allowed him pay in the grade prescribed for a junior Class II from 6‑4‑1964, i.e., the date of constitution of the Service, and from 21‑1‑1956 to 30‑11‑1962 he was placed in the grade of Rs. 200‑10‑

350. For the period 1‑12‑1962 to 5‑4‑1964 he was placed in the grade of Rs. 150‑9‑240‑10‑

350. Thereafter, four posts on the Administrative side in the senior Class II of the Service fell vacant but they were all filled by initial recruitment. The petitioner challenged the propriety of this recruitment and claimed that 50 % of the vacancies should have been filled by promotion as prescribed by rules 9 (2) and 12 (I) read with item No. 2 of the Appendix to the Local Councils and Municipal Committee Rules. He also claimed that, since he was equated in the junior Class II Service in the Accounts Branch, he was eligible for promotion to senior Class II on the Administrative side. Again, on 7‑4‑1970, the Commissioner promoted him and posted him as Chief Officer, Municipal Committee, Sadiqabad, on probation for two years but he was to draw his pay in his own scale of Class II (Jr.) L. C. S. till further orders, because the Commissioner, being of the opinion that this promotion needed relaxation of rule 11 (2), had recommended his case to the Government for such relaxation saying that "the arrangement made by this office is subject to the relaxation of rule 11(2)." The Government, instead of approving the relaxation, on the 29th December 1971 posted the petitioner back as Accountant and fixed his pay in the grade of Rs. 125‑7‑195/8‑275 for the period 1‑12‑1962 to 5‑4‑1964. The petitioner sought to challenge the filling up of the vacancies by initial recruitment by Writ Petition No. 27/S of 1970/BWP and the order of Government dated the 29th of December 1971, reverting him back to his substantive post, by Writ Petition No. 83/S of 1972 (LHR). Both these petitions were heard together by a learned Single Judge of the High Court who dismissed Writ Petition No. 27/S of 1970 on the ground that no one has a vested right to promotion. Reliance for this purpose was placed on two decisions of this Court in the cases of Government of West Pakistan v. Fida Muhammad Khan (PLD1960SC45) and Government of West Pakistan v. Mr. Fateh Ullah Khan (PLD1960SC105). In both these cases it had been held that the expression "terms and conditions admissible to them before the 10th day of August 1955" must be read in a narrow and limited sense to refer to concrete matters relating to the actual service of the person concerned on the specified date and cannot be extended to include such far‑fetched matters as his prospective promotion into a higher service upon the assumption that he might attain a status in his present service and earn the degree of approbation necessary for such promotion. Writ Petition No. 83/S‑1972 was only partially allowed to the extent that the order of Government, re‑fixing the petitioner's pay from 1‑12‑1962 to 5‑4‑1964 in a scale less favourable to him, was set aside on the ground that it bad been made without affording him an opportunity of showing cause or making any representation. The other contention that since the Commissioner was the final authority under the rules to make the promotion on further reference to Government was necessary, was repelled on the ground that the promotion was purely temporary and subject to relaxation of rule 11(2). The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal and has tried to re‑agitate the same questions before us. We are in agreement with the High Court that prospects of promotion cannot be' included in the conditions of service nor can they be enforced by any proceeding under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962, which is limited only to the enforcement of the conditions of; service specified in the Constitution. Prospects of promotion are not one of such conditions. We are also in agreement with the High Court that the appointment by the Commissioner was not a final order ; it was purely temporary and was subject to the relaxation of rule 11(2). The writ petitions filed by petitioner were, therefore, rightly rejected. There is no ground to interfere. Such relief as could be given has been given by the High Court. The petition accordingly is dismissed. Leave refused.