2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Ch. Muhammad Khalid Farooq for Petitioner. Fazal-e-Miran Chohan, Addl. A.-G. Javed Hussain Sial, Litigation Officer along with Zahid Manzoor Section Officer for Respondent No.

1. Rana Liaqat Ali Superintendent for Respondent No.2. The petitioners who are Inspectors of Stamps have invoked the, jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, with the prayer that "the present writ petition may kindly be accepted, non-inclusion of the petitioners/Stamp Inspectors (BS-16) Board of Revenue, Punjab, in the category of employees declared eligible for promotion to the post of PMS (BS-17) in the 10% quota in Schedule-I and the impugned "The Punjab Provincial Management Service Rules, 2004" may please be declared as illegal, without lawful authority, discriminatory and consequently the respondents may kindly be directed to include the petitioners category/Stamp Inspector in the list of eligible officials for promotion to Provincial Management Service (BS-17) along with other categories of persons without any discrimination whatsoever".

2. In support of the petition, the learned counsel contends that while framing the rules i.e. Punjab Provincial Management Service Rules, 2004, Stamp Inspectors (the petitioners) have been excluded from the channel of promotion to the Provincial Management Service and since Data Entry Operators, Computer Operators and Junior Clerks possessing qualification of LLB and Master Degree have been included, the petitioners were also entitled to a similar treatment. Report and parawise comments have been submitted by the respondents. The learned Additional Advocate-General Punjab has also been heard in the matter. Undisputedly, the Stamp Inspectors were not even eligible under the erstwhile Rules namely Punjab Extra Assistant Commissioner Recruitment Rules, 1992 whereas persons having LLB Degree and holding the posts of Superintendents, Private Secretaries, Personal Assistants, Senior Scale Stenographers and Stenographers under the Government of the Punjab were eligible for promotion against a specific quota as Extra Assistant Commissioner. In. the rules recently framed namely the Punjab Provincial Management Service Rules, 2004, 50% appointments are to be made through initial recruitment whereas remaining 50 % are to be filled by promotion on the basis of the allocated quota as per Schedule-I of the Rules. The Stamp Inspectors did not find mention therein. They had made representation with the support of the Board of Revenue but the competent authority in the matter i.e. the Service Rules. Committee has not acceded to their request. Suffice it to observe that determination of eligibility criteria for promotion is C essentially an administrative matter falling within the executive domain and policy decision making of the Government and the interference with such matters by the Courts is not warranted. It had long ago been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that no vested right of a Government servant is involved in the matter of promotion or the rules determining the eligibility or fitness. Reference may be made to The Central Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistan v. Mr. Asad Ahmad Khan (PLD 1960 SC (Pak) 81; In Muhammad Umar Malik and others v. Federal Service Tribunal and others (PLD 1987 SC 172), the contention "that the rules of promotion should not have been changed so as to affect adversely those already on the eligibilities list i.e. the combined list of the U.D.Cs. and S.G.Cs." was repelled observing that "No such vested right in promotion or rules determining eligibility for promotion exist". In Ch. Muhammad Insha Ullah and others v. Chief Conservator of Forests (P&E) Punjab and others (PLD 1988 SC 155), it was held that in the absence of impairment of vested right, it would be within the exclusive competence of the Governor to determine the terms and conditions of the service". In Falak Sher Khan and another v Mukhtar Ahmad (PLD 1989 SC 262), again similar principle was reiterated. It may be mentioned that an amendment made in the Rules by the Governor which adversely affected prospects of the promotion of group of persons in the service, had been assailed in that case. It was laid down that "The amendment in the rules has been properly made under powers vesting in the Governor to amend any rule which, in his opinion, appears to be necessary or expedient". It was held that such was a legitimate exercise of power and that "such. a change in the rules cannot be made a ground of grievance by any person expecting to be promoted to a higher rank on the basis of the existing rules. In fact, under the law, no vested right can be claimed by the civil servants who have not yet been promoted in any rules determining eligibility for promotion under the said rules of promotion. Accordingly, any change made in those rules before they are actually promoted cannot furnish a cause for complaint to them. This is for the simple reason that prospects of promotion are not justicible and do not confer any vested right". This being the legal position that even when the existing rules relating to promotion can be altered by the competent authority and no cause for grievance can be made thereabout, a person who was out of channel of promotion cannot compel to be included therein nor the Court can issue any such direction. Reference made by the learned counsel to precedents relating to the grant of allowance to civil servants/employees of different organizations, is wholly inappropriate and inapt as the matter of promotion cannot be equated with the grant of allowance nor similar treatment can be claimed. In such view of the matter, the petitioners cannot be granted any relief by the Court. The petition is dismissed accordingly. M.I./S-262/L Petition dismissed.