1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Appellant in person. Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondent. S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑Syed Ghulam Shabbir Bukhari, has filed this appeal without indicating any section of any re levant Act and without impleading any person as respondent. He filed this appeal through 6ak on 12th August, 1981. This appeal was admitted to regular hearing subject to all just exceptions.

2. By virtue of this appeal which is in vernacular the appellant has represented that he should be given N.P.S. 20 which was not acceded to him on account of his having not outstanding record of service.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant who has served the Educati en Department for 43 years was retired at the age of superannua tion in Grade‑

19. According to the contents of his appeal the appellant had meritorious record of service and bad survived by so many Review Committee, which extended his service from time to time, till he was retired at the age of 60 years. He has also recounted his achievements by mentioning that be was author of so many books and bad occupied im portant assignments and conducted himself with devotion to work to the satisfaction of his superiors.

4. We have heard the appellant in person as well as learned District Attorney who has raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of this appeal as time‑barred and that the appellant has failed to implead any respondent against whom he has some grievance. Learned District Attorney has further submitted that this objection was brought to the notice of the appellant and this Tribunal was pleased to direct him on 31st March, 1982 that he should file an amended appeal in accordance with the rules laid down in this behalf and it was mandatory for him to implead the parties and to apply for condonation of limitation under section 5 of the Limitation Act.

5. What we find from the record is that the appellant has failed to amend his appeal as directed by this Tribunal on the last date of hearing as well as to file any application under section 5 for condonation of limitation and has only added another vernacular application which do not fulfil the direction as laid down under the rules of this Tribunal as well as provisions of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. We have also consulted the record and find that the name of the appellant was consi dered by the High Powered Provincial Selection Board for the grant of N.P.S. 20 but the said Board declined to promote him as such.

6. W e have no dispute with the proposition that the appellant who is a scholar of fame as well as man of letters and has done his best in his life to perform his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors but at the same time we are conscious of great impediment in his way that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit judge over the decision of the High Powered Promotion Committee which is the only forum to grant promotion on the basis of seniority‑cum‑fitness.

7. The appellant's conduct in not filing the appeal in accordance with the directive of the Tribunal cannot be taken out of consideration as he is highly educated person, well conversant with the legal formalities laid down under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, as well as the rules laid down in this behalf. This Tribunal has made every efforts to apprise the appellant to this effect that the grievance, if at all, to a Government servant, are to be ventilated in particular form so laid down and simple application without fulfilling the requirements of rule nowhere can be equated with the appeal as envisaged under the Act.

8. We also have taken note of the fact that the appeal is hopelessly barred by time and no regular affidavit duly attested by the Oath Commis sioner is on the record to allow us to consider as to what were the reasons which compelled the appellant to agitate against his grievance in such belated manner.

9. In view of the above analysis of this document we are of the considered opinion that the objections raised by the learned District Attorney are weighty and liable to succeed. The result is that we dismiss the appeal as time‑barred as well as not maintainable. Appeal dismissed.