Law:

Section:

  SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.-Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant in BPS-11 in the Directorate-General, Immigration and Passport on 10-5-1976 and was granted selection grade in BPS-15 on 1=4-1988. In the tentative seniority list of Assistants issued on 24-7-1979, petitioner was placed at S.No.36 as direct recruit. He opted for the post of Examiner subject to the condition that his pay in BPS-15 would be protected and he was so promoted vide order dated 18-8-1990. He was further promoted as Assistant Incharge (BPS-15) vide office order dated 29-11-1990 but he made representation and claimed therein for promotion as Superintendent ( BPS- 16). He was informed that if he did not accept promotion as Assistant Incharge, he would lose his seniority for further promotion as Superintendent. Against such stand he filed representation which was dismissed by the department and then he filed service appeal which is also dismissed, hence this petition for leave to appeal.   It is submitted before us on behalf of the petitioner that Department of Immigration and Passport (respondent No. 2 herein) is an attached Department of Ministry of Interior and in respect of appointment and promotion to ministerial post, the rules are same as are contained in Government Notification dated 10-4-1988. In the normal channel Assistants (BPS-11) can be promoted as selection grade Assistants/Assistants Incharge (BPS-15) and Superintendents (BPS-16). Assistants and Stenographers (BPS-11) are eligible for promotion as Examiners (BPS-12) in the Regional Passport Offices of respondent No. 2. There was no selection grade prescribed for Assistants in the attached departments of the Federal Government, hence post of Assistant Incharge (BPS-12) was considered equivalent to that of Examiner in the Regional Passport Office. Respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have been shown as senior to the petitioner in the seniority list wrongly for the reason that they were promoted as Assistants before the petitioner in excess of prescribed quota which promotions are to be treated as ad hoc in nature, hence their regularisation with retrospective effect was not permissible. It was submitted that petitioner completed…