1990 PLP 1492 (SCMR)

S.M. Zamir zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate ‑on‑ Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing:, 23rd January, 1990. RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.‑‑‑This is a petition by Mushtaq Hussain Shah, petitioner seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, dated 4‑2‑1988 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. 2. The brief facts' of the case are that on 7‑1‑1980, the petitioner, while working as Assistant Food Controller, was retired from service under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants‑Act, 1974. On 17‑1‑1982 he was reinstated in service with back benefits. In the meantime Ch. Muhammad Fazil, respondent No.3, who was junior to the petitioner, was promoted as Storage Officer on 24‑9‑1980. The petitioner requested for his promotion, but it was not considered. He filed W.P. No.2894 of 1985 in the High Court, Lahore in which the High Court gave directions to the Director Food Lahore Region, and the Secretary, Food, Government of the Punjab, respondents Nos.l and 2, to decide the pending appeals/representations of the petitioner. In the meantime the petitioner retired or superannuation on 2‑3‑198‑5. The case of the petitioner for pro forma promotion was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 14‑1‑1987, but it did not find him fit for pro unsatisfactory record of aggrieved petitioner filed representation before the Secretary Food, Government of Punjab on 14‑2‑1987 which was rejected. The petitioner ultimately filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, on 13‑10‑1987, which was dismissed as incompetent on 4‑2‑1988. 3. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that he did not come to know of the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee, dated 14‑1‑1987 till 5‑10‑1987; during which intervening period he had also been making representations to the Secretary Food on 14‑2‑1987 and 29‑7‑1987. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal before the Tribunal was not incompetent. It is further submitted that the adverse remarks recorded against the petitioner were not supported by any evidence and were passed on mere conjectures. 4. The representations of the petitioner to the Secretary Food made on 14‑2‑1987 and 29‑7‑1987 clearly show that the petitioner had information about the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee, dated 14‑1‑1987. In this view of the matter, the finding of the Tribunal that the appeal was barred is legal an4.proper. Likewise, the Tribunal could not have gone into evidence to determine the fitness or otherwise of the petitioner for promotion. No substantial legal question of public importance arise in this case. There being no merit in this petition the same is dismissed in limine. A.A./M-1244/S Petition dismissed.