MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE and others vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Chief

' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J. --- This appeal is directed by leave of the Court against judgment, dated 16th September, 1999 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore whereby Appeal No,1092 of 1993 of appellants has been dismissed.

2. Leave to appeal has been granted by this Court on 22nd November, 2000 to examine the following questions:-- "(i) Whether the petitioners can legally claim to be governed by the rules which prevailed at the time of their induction in service, or they have no vested right to claim so and they will be governed by the amended rules;

(ii) Whether the appeal before the Tribunal suffered from laches/undue delay and misjoinder of parties; and

(iii) Whether joint appeal before the Board by all the petitioners was not competent."

3. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the competent authority .Had no power to change the Rules detriment to the interest of appellants. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent/department conceded that as far as promotion is concerned it is not the right of an employee as the Government has the right to enhance the qualifications and the standards for recruitment and promotion in order to maintain efficiency in service.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case carefully as well as examined the ratio descendi of the case of Dr. Muhammad Hussain v. Principal, Ayub Medical College and another PLD 2003 SC 143. Relevant para. 4 is reproduced hereinbelow for convenience:--

(4) We have carefully examined the contentions as against on behalf of petitioner in the light of relevant regulations and rules of PMDC concerning the appointment of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor in Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad. The judgment impugned has also been perused carefully. We are not persuaded to agree with the prime contention of Sheikh Mehmood Ahmad, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner that no amendment could be made in the relevant regulations/rules by the competent Authority adversely affecting the rights of the petitioner for the reason that there is no cavil to the proposition that Government is competent to enhance, alter or amend the prescribed qualification for a particular post which cannot be objected as qualification for a particular post cannot be kept unchanged for decades to safeguard the interest of a particular incumbent and day to day changes in every walk of life, scientific developments and increasing technical know-how cannot be ignored. An identical proposition was examined by this Court in case Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Muzaffar Iqbal 1990 SCM R 1321, operative portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-- "The question of availability of a post of Professor in 1980 or its non-availability is irrelevant because even if the post existed, the person appointed cannot claim any right in the appointment from a date earlier to his taking over as such. The appellant denied the availability of such a vacancy and it being a factual controversy remaining unresolved so far, cannot be resolved at this stage. The remarks column categorically shows that the holders of basic qualification or minor diploma- holders equivalent to M.C.P.S. Are not eligible for promotion as professors. After this ineligibility in the rules, unless relaxation takes place, there is no question of a person having this qualification, being considered for appointment irrespective of the fact whether persons with higher qualifications are available or not.

No one can claim a vested right in promotion or in the terms and conditions for the promotion to a higher post. The Government has the right to enhance the qualifications and the standards for recruitment and promotion in order to maintain efficiency in service. Except for the post which the civil servant happens to hold, he cannot claim vested right in other higher tiers in the hierarchy."

(Emphasis provided).

5. As per ratio of above judgment the promotion is not vested right of an employee and the Government is always competent to enhance educational qualifications for the purposes of promotion, therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellants cannot claim that their promotion should be regularized according to the Rules/Law prevailing to their service. Although the Service Tribunal has non-suited the appellants on the question of ratio but in view of the above observations we are not inclined to dilate upon this aspect of the case.

' For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed.