2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.

This order will dispose of Writ Petition No.4354 of 2004, Writ Petition No.2159 of 2005 and Criminal Original No.59/W of 2006 as identical matter is involved in all these petitions.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 27-7-7004 as well as minutes of the meeting held on 1-6-2004 that they be declared as ultra vires and illegal by directing respondents Nos.1 to 3 to promote the petitioner as Deputy Registrar (PBS-18) with all benefits on the ground that at the face of the proceedings conducted by the Selection Board on 1-6-2004 the lacking of transparency is floating on the record and it flashes that the whole practice was carried out just to award the said post to respondent No.4 by introducing a self styled criterion, alien to well-recognized principle prevailing in this regard. It is worthwhile to mention that the meeting of the Selection Board for the purpose of promotion held on 1-6-2004 was secretly arranged and the petitioner was never apprised with the same, thus the respondents Nos.1 to 3 adopted the procedure of pick and choose; the petitioner having maximum experience being Assistant Registrar as compared to respondent No.4, the petitioner was legally entitled to be promoted as Deputy Registrar (PBS-18) but he was treated in a discriminatory manner, which renders the impugned order dated 27-7-2004 as well as the minutes of the meeting of Selection Board held on 1-6-2004, ultra vires and unconstitutional.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Proof Reader in Public Relation Department of the University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore in 1975 and thereafter with gradual promotions, the petitioner was awarded Selection Grade (BPS-17) w.e.f. 7-1-1998.

4. That the meeting of Selection Board was held on 1-6-2004 headed by respondent No.1 for considering the promotion by election against vacant post of Deputy Registrar (BPS-18) along with other post wherein the petitioner along with respondents Nos.4 and 5 were placed under consideration for the promotion as Deputy Registrar (BPS-18) but despite the fact that the petitioner was eligible for the post having all the qualifications, the petitioner was deprived on whimsical grounds while respondents Nos.4 and 5 were promoted as Deputy Registrar (BPS-18) against the rules and regulations.

5. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.3 which was not properly considered by the Syndicate. The petitioner further asserted his grievance before the Chancellor but no positive result came out, hence this writ petition.

6. Despite the fact that this is an old matter and is a direction case under the Judicial Policy but the learned counsel for the respondents is not available. However, Assistant Registrar, U.E.T., Taxila is present.

7. Arguments heard. Record perused.

8. The parawise comments submitted by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are annexed with the file in which respondents Nos.1 to 3 have contended that petitioner was awarded Selection Grade BPS-17 and he was appointed as Administration Officer. For the promotion to Grade BPS-18, the requisite qualification was seven years experience in holding 4A the post of BPS-17 coupled with the required performance which the petitioner lacks. The petitioner being Administration Officer was promoted as Assistant Registrar on 5-6-1996. His experience was six years and twenty days, therefore, he does not fulfil the requisite experience for the post of BPS-18 while respondent No.4 being Major (R.) from Pakistan Army and was selected as Assistant Registrar through Selection Board in 1999 according to the university rules. His service in Pakistan Army in Grade BPS-17 and above was counted for promotion as Deputy Registrar. Record further reveals that according to annual confidential reports earned by the petitioner and respondents, respondent No.4 was at a high pedestal as compared to the petitioner.

9. The promotion of the petitioner was refused while respondents Nos.4 and 5 were recommended by the Selection Board for their promotion. The petitioner has also conceded in writ petition that against the decision of Selection Board, the petitioner has already availed his remedies in shape of appeal before competent authority and thereafter further asserted his grievance before the Chancellor.

10. The honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has repeatedly held that an employee has no vested right of promotion and prospect of promotion cannot be included in conditions of service. The criterion for making promotion to higher grade implies a decision by the competent authority according to individual judgment of such authority. Seniority alone is not the determining factor for judging the suitability or fitness of an employee for discharging the functions attaching to a post in the higher grade. Further the eligibility of an employee for promotion could not be a subject-matter of writ petition. It is only competent authority to change seniority position assigning to an employee. Respectful reliance is placed on 1996 SCMR 64, 2010 SCMR 501 and 2010 SCMR 450.

11. The outcome of above discussion is that these writ petitions as well as criminal original are without any merit, hence dismissed. A.R.K./M-490/L Petition dismissed.