MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus WAPDA

ORDER

RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.‑‑‑ This is a petition filed by Muhammad Aslam, petitioner, seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 22‑9‑1985 rejecting the petitioner's appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 3‑7‑1965, Muhammad Aslam petitioner, alongwith others, was appointed as Junior Officer (Stores) in Grade 16 in WAPDA. In September 1977, WAPDA advertised posts of Senior Officers (Stores) in Grade 18 for direct recruitment. The petitioner and some others applied for the said posts. It is the case of the petitioner that alongwith others he was also interviewed by the Selection Board on 26‑2‑1978 and that the Selection Board selected the under‑noted officers who fulfilled the requisite qualifications:

(1) Muhammad Aslam, petitioner.

(2) Mr. Muhammad Akram.

(3) Mr. Muhammad Ijaz Hussain Jafri.

(4) Mr. Abdul Azeem.

(5) Mr. Muhammad Ali.

However, the petitioner, who in the meantime had proceeded on deputation with NPCC to Saudi Arabia with effect from 22‑6‑1978, was not recommended by the Selection Board for appointment as Senior Officer (Stores) on the ground that his case for appointment would be considered on his return from deputation, in accordance with the standing instructions of the Authority. The other persons, however, were appointed as Senior Officers (Stores). During his tenure in Saudia, the petitioner came to know about the promotion of his colleagues and he made various representations through NPCC to WAPDA, but without any result. The petitioner ultimately returned from deputation on 11‑8‑1981 and represented against the promotion of his colleagues. The petitioner was again interviewed by the Selection Board on 14‑7‑1982, when his representation was rejected, on the ground that the petitioner could not now be considered against direct recruitment which had been made in 1979. The Board also observed that there were no Service Rules for Store Officers Grade‑18 post and that pending the frame of Service Rules, quota for Direct Recruitment and Promotion should be fixed on the lines of Electrical Engineers Service Rules i.e. 75% for Direct Recruitments and 25% by Promotion. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which was dismissed on 22‑9‑1985. Present petition seeks leave to appeal against the said order.

3. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that since the petitioner's direct appointment was withheld merely because he had gone on deputation at WAPDA's instance and it had been decided that his case would be considered on his return from deputation, the petitioner was entitled to be treated as having been directly appointed in 1978 with others. It is further submitted that the petitioner is also entitled to notional promotion with his other colleagues who were subsequently promoted.

4. It is admitted that no appointment letter was issued in 1978/1979 to the petitioner appointing him as Senior Officer (Stores), persuant to the interview that took place on 26‑2‑1978. The petitioner cannot be directly appointed retrospectively. The judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, does not suffer from any illegality. There being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed in limine.

A.A./M‑1247/S. Petition dismissed.