1984 PLC(CS) 1528

The appeal captioned above challenges the decision, dated 29th March, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant for pro motion.

2. The appellant has been retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation. He after his retirement brought grievance petition for a direction to promote him with effect from 4th February, 1983 with back benefits of promotion. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the statement of R.W. I who stated that the post of Superinten dent was a selection post but according to practice never any selection was made. Learned counsel argues that as for promotion the case was not to go to the selection committee and as the seniority of the appellant is not dis puted, he is entitled to be promoted. Needless to say that for promotion to a selection post best of the lot is to be picked up and to a non‑selection post promotion is made according to seniority‑cum‑fitness. It is the right of the employer to decide if a particular person is or is not fit for pro motion. Thus, promotion is not a right and no question of violation of an guaranteed right arises. The Courts can only issue direction that an employee may be considered for promotion but no direction to definite promote the appellant can be given. Since the appellant is no longer in service, no direction to consider him for promotion can be issued. They grievance petition is misconceived and was rightly dismissed.

3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.

M. Y. M.

Appeal dismissed.