S. ABDUL GHAFFAR WASTI vs THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISES & LAND

ORDER

1. SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, J.-The petitioner a civil servant seeks leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil revision petition filed by him.

2. The petitioner belongs to the Central excise and Land Customs Depart--ment of the Government of Pakistan. The department had at all the relevant times prescribed an examination for the inspectors for promotion to the next higher post of Deputy Superintendent. From 1957 to 1966 there was on system of examination under which the inspectors once qualified were promo--ted in accordance with the merit obtained at the examination irrespective o their seniority etc. In 1967 this system of examination was replaced by another system. Not only the examination had to be passed by ever inspector but the seniority was also to be taken into consideration alongwith the qualification at the examination for promotion. The respondents qualified at the examination held under the system which was in vogue from 1957 to 1966. The petitioner qualified at the examination held under the new dis--pensation enforced in 1967. The petitioner's case before the department and in the civil Court was that even those inspectors who had qualified under the earlier system of examination had to take up the examination under the system which was introduced in 1967 and they could not on the strength of having passed the earlier examination claim promotion over those qualifying in the examination subsequently prescribed. For claiming so reliance was placed on the fact that the department had throughout been treating the earlier examination as a competitive examination which could not outlast the number of posts which had to be filled and also on the ground that there was no specific reservation or exemption made in favour of those who had already qualified and that the system of examination subsequently introduced was tougher than the earlier one. The departmental view, however, was that those who had qualified in the earlier examination had got the right to be promote and their vested right was not impaired by the new system of the examination The representation made - by the petitioner to the department against the promotion of the respondents on the basis of the earlier examination was rejected. The suit, the appeal and the revision all failed.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner remains the same namely that the change in the system of examination was so fundamental and' basic, that a new order came into existence obliterating the earlier system or the rights claimable under it. Further support for it was sought from the fact that no express reservation was made in favour of those who had qualified under the earlier system.

4. The change was neither fundamental nor basic. The system of examina--tion, and primarily the examination remained the basis for promotion. None, unless exempted, could claim promotion without qualifying at the examination. The change in the subjects of examination, the weightage to be given to the result thereof and relating it to other considerations could not efface the sub-- sisting qualifications, because the two systems could consistently be reconciled, and continued. In recognizing the qualification of the respondents, arising out of the result of the earlier examination, the continuity of the system was kept, the qualifications earned preserved and the basis for promotion not tampered with. We find that the view taken by the department and the Courts suffers from no legal error. The leave to appeal is refused.