1988 PLC(CS) 882

ORDER

1. While holding the post of Overseer, the appellant was promoted as officiating Sub‑Divisional Officer on 26‑10‑1961 as a stop gap arrangement subject to the condition that he would be on six months' probation/trial and his continuance beyond the probationary period would further be subject to the approval of Public Service Commission. His case was subsequently referred to the Public Service Commission but for some or the other reason, he was not approved by the Public Service Commission. He was therefore reverted to his substantive rank of Overseer with effect from 2‑1‑1971. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge First Class which stood transferred to the Court of District Judge, Nawabshah as a result of amendment of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance. He also filed application for temporary injunction, which was rejected by the trial Court. He therefore filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in the Court of District Judge who allowed his appeal and remanded the case to the trial Court for its adjudication and granted the necessary injunction. The respondent filed revision petition in the High Court against the order of District Judge and moved for stay of District Judge's order, but the petition was dismissed. Consequent upon the promulgation of Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the aforesaid suit of the appellant stood abated. Hence this appeal under section 6 ibid.

2. The respondent has raised the plea that his promotion was on ad hoc basis. But we are unable to agree. The appellant's promotion order dated 26‑10 1961 shows that he was promoted on temporary basis subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions was that his continuance was subject to the approval of Public Service Commission. The latter did not approve him and therefore he had to revert. However, his promotion was subsequently regularised by the Sind Public Service Commission and they came to the conclusion that the promotion should take effect from the date of order of regularisation. To our mind this is a fait accompli and the Tribunal cannot sit in judgment over the advice of the Commission and adjudicate differently. Since there is no scope for this Tribunal to interfere and the order has been passed by the departmental authority on the advice of the Commission, we dismiss the appeal.

3. S.S.Q./160/Sr. S

4. Appeal dismissed.