1993 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH (CHAIRMAN).‑‑‑Dr. Mrs. Raana Masood Naqvi, a Principal, Research Officer in the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DESTO), has preferred this appeal against her supersession as Principal, Research Officer from 1977 onwards.

2. The appellant joined the Defence Science and Technology Organisation as a Research Officer in the year 1967. There were promotions to the posts of Principal Research Officers (BPS‑19) in the year 1977. The appellant was not considered whereas her juniors Dr. A.R. Qazi, Mr. Asghar Ali Choudhry and Mr. Tariq Masood were promoted. She filed Writ Petition No. 51/78 in the Sindh High Court. Her writ petition was disposed of by a consented order dated 5‑3‑1981 that the appellant would be considered for promotion to Grade 19 thereafter irrespective of discipline the prospective candidates belonged to, as per Rule 2 of the recruitment rules and conditions of eligibility laid down in column No.3 of the said rules. However, she was again by‑passed and her two juniors, namely ‑ Mr. G.M. Akhtar and Mr. S.M. Asim were promoted. in December, 1981. She was again ignored in the year 1984 when her four juniors, Dr. Zaheer Ahmad, Mr. M.Y. Kiyani, Mr. Arshad Ahmad and Mr. Naseem Iqbal were promoted in March, 1984. She made representation to the Chief Scientist and Scientific Adviser on 15‑4‑1984. She did not find any response. However, she was appointed to hold current charge of the post of Principal Research Officer vide order dated 9‑10‑1984 and she held that charge up to March, 1986. Ultimately, she was regularly promoted as Principal Research Officer (BPS‑19) in Bio‑Research Group with effect from 3‑2‑1987 vide order dated 11‑2‑1987. She made representation dated 19‑2‑1987 for ante‑dation of her promotion with effect from 9‑10‑1984. She made another representation dated 19‑4‑1987. She was informed under communication dated 21‑5‑1987 that no useful purpose could be served by ante‑dating her promotion. Thereafter, she preferred this appeal on 25‑6‑1987 with the following prayer: (i) Hold and declare that the appellant being an incumbent as Senior Research Officer in the year 1977 was entitled to be considered for promotion in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in 1977 by the respondent department there being admittedly no finding that she was not found fit for promotion at that time but only for the reasons that vacancy in the related discipline was not available to effect her promotion. That being the case, the appellant is senior to those who were promoted as batch in the year 1977 and her promotion be, ante dated to 5th July, 1977. (ii) Alternatively without prejudice to the above the appellant is entitled to have the date of her promotion ante‑dated as 1‑12‑1981 and counting of her seniority from the said date when for the second time the juniors persons (Mr. G.M. Akhtar and Mr. S.M. Asim) were promoted as Principal Research Officer in violation of admitted position and in disregard of order of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi. The appellant is entitled to all benefits ..qf service such as salary, emoluments, seniority from the said date. (iii) In case the aforesaid prayer is not granted by the Hon'ble Tribunal to the appellant, it be declared that the appellant is entitled to have her date of her promotion ante‑dated to 5‑2‑1984 when the persons juniors (Dr. Zaheer Muhammad Khan, (ii) Mr. M.Y. Kiyani, (iii) Mr. Irshad Ahmad and (iv) Mr. Nasim lqbal) to her were promoted as Principal Research Officer she be given all the benefits of service seniority from the said date when the juniors persons were promoted. (iv) Finally in case the aforesaid reliefs cannot be granted to the appellant under the law the appellant's promotion be ante‑dated to 1‑10‑1984, when the appellant was called upon to hold the current charge of the post of Principal Research Officer and she be given all benefits of service such as seniority, salary and emoluments etc., from the said date. (v) Call for records and proceedings and minutes of all the Departmental Promotion Committee/Selection Board for the period from 1977 to 1984. (vi) Set aside the order as communicated on 21‑5‑1987 (received by the appellant on 31‑5‑1987) and passed appropriate order granting relief to the appellant as prayed above.

3. The appellant has, based her case on the grounds that by virtue of her seniority, she was entitled to promotion right from 1977 as the promotions the posts of Principal Research Officers were not required to be made discipline‑wise, and in any case the idea of making promotions to the post rat Principal Research Officers discipline wise had to be abandoned in view of the statement made by the respondent‑department before the Sindh High Court and she should have been promoted irrespective of the discipline in the vacancy that had occurred in the years 1981 and 1984 and her belated promotion in the year 1987 should have been ante‑dated to the date of promotions in 1981, and/or 1984:

4. The respondents did not file written objections within the stipulated period. The department filed written objections only at the date of hearing. The individual respondents 5 to 13 did not file objections at any time nor did they make appearance at the hearing of the appeal. At the hearing of appeal, Lt.‑Col (Retd.) Muhammad Sajjad Younus, Senior Administrative Officer, representing the DESTO, made lucid statement of the developments, which had taken place in making the promotions to the posts of Principal Research Officers. The synopsis of the statement made by him are as under: YEAR 1977: Three vacancies of Principal Research Officers occurred in Biology discipline. Names of five officers including the appellant were referred to the Central Selection Board. Appellant's name was placed at S.No. 4 seniority‑wise. First three candidates M/s. Azhar Hassan, Zia Mehdi Rizvi and Safdar Yar Jang were approved. The appellant and the fifth candidate byname Mr, S.M. Asim were not considered. YEAR 1978: One vacancy of Principal Research Officer occurred in Physics discipline. Names of two candidates, namely the appellant and Mr. Tariq Masood were referred to the Central Selection Board. The Board approved the name of Mr. Tariq Masood on the basis of his experience in Physics discipline. YEAR 1981: Names of three candidates namely the appellant, Mr. G.M. Akhtar and Mr. S.M. Asim were referred to the Central Selection Board for two posts of Principal Research Officers, one in Chemistry, and another in Biology disciplines. The appellant was not approved for promotion and was superseded. YEAR 1983: There were four posts of Principal Research Officers for promotion, three in Chemistry discipline and 4th in Physics discipline. Names of five candidates, namely Dr. Zaheer (Chemistry discipline), M.Y. Kiani (Chemistry discipline) Arshad Ahmed (Chemistry discipline), Sharif Pervaiz (Physics discipline) and Latif Iqbal (Physics discipline) were referred to the Central Selection Board. All of them except Mr. Sharif Pervaiz were approved for promotion. Name of the appellant was not referred to the Board as she did not belong to those disciplines. The orders of promotion were issued in the year 1984. YEAR 1984: One post of Principal Research Officer fell vacant in June or July, 1984 on account of transfer of Dr. M.S. Bokhari, who was Director of Laboratories in Grade‑20, and Dr. Bhatti, Head of Research Group was put in current charge of the post of Director Laboratories, and Dr. Qamar Ansari senior‑most Principal Research Officer was made head of Research Group and the appellant was given current charge of the post that was held by Dr. Qamar Ansari. However, Dr. Qamar Ansari continued as Head of Research Group as it was not a promotion post. She belonged to Biology discipline. YEAR 1986: There were three Posts of Principal Research Officers, one in Biology discipline, another in Physics discipline and the third in Chemistry discipline. Three candidates were approved discipline‑wise. The appellant was one of them.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the same grounds that the rules did not provide for discipline‑wise promotion to the post of Principal Research Officer and, therefore, there was no reason for ignoring the appellant at the time of promotions made in the years 1977, 1978, 1981, 1983 and even in 1984. He urged that the appellant was, therefore, entitled to ante -dation of her promotion. He also urged further that even if there was practice of making promotions discipline‑wise, that practice should not have been continued after the department had made statement before the Sindh High Court in the writ petition filed by the appellant that the promotions hence forth would be made on seniority basis irrespective of the discipline the post was available. He also urged that in no case there was any justification for withholding the name of the appellant from the consideration for promotion by the Central Selection Board. He placed reliance on a case reported in PLD 1990 SC

612. He also relied upon the cases reported in 1985 PLC (CS) 521 and 1991 SCMR 125 as regards the powers of the Tribunal in giving relief to the aggrieved party.

6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the department argued that the promotions to the post of Principal/Research Officer used to be made discipline‑wise up to 1981 when statement was made by the department in the Sindh High Court that promotions would be made on seniority basis irrespective of the discipline the vacant post pertained to. He expressed the opinion that the case of promotion of the appellant should not have been withheld in the year 1983 but the relief in respect of appellant's supersession in that year had become time‑barred. According to him; the appellant was superseded at the time of promotions made in 1984 and she was promoted at the next occasion of promotions, which took place in the year 1986 and orders were issued in the year 1987 and she would count her seniority from the date of promotion in that year.

7. Rules for recruitment to the posts in Grades 17 to 20 in the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (Defence Division) were published in the year 1976. A copy of the notification has been filed as Annexure H at page 28 of the memo of appeal. It is provided therein that the posts of Principal Research Officers (Grade‑19) would be filled by promotion to the extent of 67% in Scientific Group and by direct recruitment the remaining 33% posts. Under the rules, the promotions to the posts of Principal Research Officers in Scientific Group were to be made from amongst the Research Officers having 12 years' service in Grade‑17 and above, relaxable to 7 years service in Grade 18 for those recruited initially in Grade‑18 with the added qualification of quality of ability to guide in research and development production work, with some publications in standard journals/technical reports/patented processes. The rules did not specifically provide for making promotions to the posts of Principal Research Officers of the candidate discipline‑wise. Of course, the rules do provide that a candidate for direct recruitment to the post of Principal Research Officer (Grade‑19) must possess Doctorate Degree in the related Scientific discipline or equivalent. This distinction between the conditions of eligibility for promotion and the qualifications for direct recruitment does have wisdom behind it in the sense that a candidate for promotion is required to have 12 years' service in Grade‑17 and above, relaxable to 7 years' service in Grade‑18 for those recruited initially in Grade‑18, conceding some concession to the experience in the department/group and laying down for a direct recruit the qualification of Doctorate Degree in the related Scientific discipline which may not be possessed by the promotees but it is obvious that experience in the related Scientific discipline does have importance in making appointment either by promotion or by direct recruitment to the post of Principal Research Officer in Grade‑

19. Thus, no injustice seems to have been done to the appellant in not promoting her to the post of Principal Research Officer (Grade‑19) in the Scientific discipline she did not possess academic qualification of course, she succeeded in getting undertaking from the department before the Sindh High Court in the year 1981 that experience in the related Scientific discipline would not be made a criteria for making promotions in future. The promotions in the year 1981 were made after the undertaking before the High Court was given that promotions would not be made discipline‑wise, but the minutes of the meeting of the Central Selection Board filed alongwith the written objections by the department bear out that the appellant was superseded on account of her indifferent record. No doubt, her name was not referred to the Central Selection Board in the year 1983 and the contention of the department is that the post to be filled in was in the discipline the appellant did not possess requisite academic qualifications for. This attitude by the department was against the undertaking given before the High Court. The appellant did make representation but did not pursue the matter further and her supersession held field by her default. The appellant was given acting charge of the post of Principal, Research Officer in the year 1984 and regular promotion to that post was made in the year 1986 and the appellant was promoted against that post and the notification of her promotion was issued in the year 1987. Her representation for ante ‑‑‑dation of her promotion was rightly turned down in view of the facts discussed above. She has, therefore, no case for getting any one of the reliefs prayed for and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. A.A./680/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.