Captain SARFARAZ AHMAD MUFTI vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB And Other

ORDER

MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J.---This petition seeks leave to appeal from the High Court's judgment dated 25-11-1990, whereby the writ petition filed by Ch. Yar Muhammad Durriana; Superintendent Central Jail, Rawalpindi, respondent No.3 herein, challenging the validity of the Provincial Selection Board's orders dated 24-6-1982, 15-9-1985 and another order of the Provincial Government, which was communicated to him vide letter dated 12-5-1990, was accepted and a direction given that his case for pro forma promotion to NPS-18 would be placed before the said Board.

2. The facts in brief are that the respondent, who was serving as a Superintendent: Jail in NPS-17, was due for promotion to NPS-18, but twice ignored by the Departmental Promotion Committee.

The reason for refusing to grant him promotion in the first instance was that an inquiry was pending against him, but as found later on this inquiry ended in merely administering a warning to him. The basis for the second denial was that he was censured in consequence of another inquiry.

It is noteworthy that during this interregnum, the persons junior to the respondent were awarded promotion in NPS-18. The petitioner before us is one of such promotees.

3. The respondent was ultimately promoted on 11-6-1986 and he filed a representation before the Government claiming pro forma promotion. As the Authorities concerned failed to take decision in the matter, he filed a writ petition in the High Court for the redress of his grievance. An Assistant Advocate---General appeared before the High Court and made a statement on behalf of the Provincial Government that the respondent's case would be decided within 10 days. In pursuance of this commitment, the Home Secretary sent a summary to the Chief Minister suggestive of rejection of the respondent's representation. Accordingly, it was turned down and an intimation thereof was given to the respondent vide letter dated 12-5-1990. This compelled him to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court once again. As stated in the opening part of this order, this writ petition was accepted. The High Court found that the rejection of the respondent's representation at the hands of the Chief Minister was designedly manoeuvred and as only minor penalties were imposed on him, these could not have posed a hurdle for consideration of his case for promotion by the Promotion Board. It was observed that under the rules, on account of minor penalties, award of promotion to the respondent could not have been withheld. The High Court also noticed that the respondent's case for promotion found ample support from the policy letters issued by the Government.

4. The petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the High Court. The grievance voiced by him is that the High Court has virtually issued orders to the Provincial Selection Board to confer pro forma promotion on the respondent, and if such promotion is granted to him he might rank senior to the petitioner.

5. We are not persuaded by these submissions. The High Court has referred to certain policy letters of the Government under which the respondent's case .For promotion merited consideration, but he was illegally ignored. The observations made by the High Court are neither intended to foreclose the proceedings before the Provincial Selection Board nor to influence their decision one way or the other. As regards the' respondent's seniority, we find that the High Court has not expressed any opinion on this issue. With the above observations, this petition is dismissed and the leave prayed for refused.