2009 SCMR 764 (PLP)

SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.

Tanveer Shaukat has filed this petition against judgment, dated 9-7-2007 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby appeal brought by petitioner was dismissed.

2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that petitioner is serving as Process Server in Civil Court, Narowal since 14-2-1991. A test was conducted for promotion to the post of Naib Nazirs and on the basis of merit list, respondents Nos.3 and 4 (Muhammad Ikram and Muhammad Idrees) were recommended for promotion against the said posts of Naib Nazirs on 28-5-2001 and they were accordingly promoted vide order, dated 8-9-2002. The Departmental appeal brought by petitioner was dismissed vide order, dated 11-3-2006. He filed appeal before Punjab Service Tribunal which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

3. We have heard the arguments and perused the record. As stated earlier petitioner and respondents Nos.3 and 4 were serving as Process Servers and posts of Naib Nazirs were lying vacant, therefore, respondents were promoted as Naib Nazirs. The case of petitioner is that procedure adopted by respondent/department is not proper and that he was also fit for promotion as Naib Nazir. Also that promotion to them only on the basis of seniority cum fitness but respondents Nos.3 and 4 were promoted on the basis of test hence order of promotion is illegal. The departmental appeal brought by petitioner has been disposed of by competent authority after hearing the petitioner. The judgment, dated 9-7-2007 shows that it was case of double promotion therefore, D.P.C. considered it necessary to conduct test for promotion as Naib Nazir. The impugned judgment shows that the learned Tribunal has decided the appeal brought by petitioner on the appraisal of entire material available on record. Paragraphs Nos.11, 12 and 13 of the impugned judgment read as under:

"(11) There is no cavil with the principle of law propounded in the said authority and it is a clear legal position that the mere qualification is not the sole criteria for the determination of comparative merits of the contenders for promotion and the merit undoubtedly includes experience, seniority competence, rectitude and antecedents in service record as well and it is also a clear position of law that no preferential right of promotion to a civil servant can be given over the civil servant in the same service or class although senior to him, but possessing less qualification. However, in the instant case, it was not merely the question of higher qualification which was kept in view. In fact the candidates had been asked to appear in a written test and interview and it was the result of the written test as well which was considered at the time of determining the fitness of candidates for further promotion. It was held in 1983 PLC (C.S.) 652 (Lahore High Court) that as the minimum qualifications for eligibility for promotion to the post of Civil Nazir are contained in High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders and such provisions are not provided in Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, the former will prevail not being inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. (12) The learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on 2000 PLC (C.S.) 563 (Federal Service Tribunal) and in which it was held .that if a civil servant had the prescribed minimum qualification, he had the right to be promoted under the statute. However, in the instant case, it was not a case of normal promotion but a case of double promotion and in which the Departmental Selection Committee had decided to hold a written test and the candidates had been asked to go through the same and it was on the basis of the result of the written examination as well that the fitness of the candidates had been determined. (13) The learned District Judge while deciding the departmental appeal has given very convincing and cogent reasons for the conclusion drawn by him and hence I think that there is hardly any justification for interference by this. Tribunal." It is a well-reasoned judgment. Even otherwise respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have been promoted on the recommendations of D.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any irregularity in the order of promotion of respondents. So we find that impugned judgment is just and proper. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment, therefore, there is no justification to set aside the same. Accordingly, this petition having no force is dismissed and leave is refused. H.B.T./T-9/ SC Leave refused.