Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 2540 2015 SLD 2540 2015 PLC 1519
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 1184 of 2011, Dated: 11th July, 2014. Date of hearing: 11th July, 2014. (Against judgment Dated 14-1-2011 of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad passed in Appeal No. 325(P)CS/2010)
ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE, EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, JUSTICE, MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE
Ghulam Nabi Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, DAG for
Respondents.

MST. BASHARAT JEHAN

VS

DIRECTOR-GENERAL, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EDUCATION, FGEI (C///Q) RAWALPINDI AND OTHERS

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973--- ----R. 3(2)---National Command Authority Rules, Chap.II, para.7(k)---Civil service---Initial appointment---Relaxation in age prescribed for initial appointment--- Typographical error in advertisement for post qua upper age limit of applicant---Vested right of civil servant on issuance of appointment letter and joining of service---Scope--- Appellant applied for the position of Assistant Librarian (BPS-9)---Besides other educational qualifications, upper age limit for the advertised post was mentioned as 35 years, which could only be relaxed in exceptional cases---Appellant, who was 37 years of age, qualified the written test and interview and was selected for the post on merits---Appellant was issued appointment letter and accordingly joined service---Along with her joining, appellant furnished certificate of age relaxation to the authorities---After joining the service, appellant was issued a show-cause notice and consequently removed from service on the ground of being over age at the time of initial appointment---Contentions of appellant were that she was 37 years of age at the time of applying for the post and was entitled for general relaxation of 5 years of age as per Government Policy, which was applicable on all the departments under the Federal Government[Federal Government notification/Office Memorandum No.F.9/2/9 R5 dated 28th November, 2000; that another applicant, who was 39 years of age at the time of applying for the post, was issued appointment letter without any exception, therefore, present case was one of discrimination---Contentions on behalf of Federal Government were that originally age for the advertised position was 25 years, which was increased to 30 years as per the notification in question; that mentioning of 35 years as the upper age limit for the advertised post was a typo-error, as such appellant could not be extended further age relaxation---Validity---Appellant had not procured her appointment letter through dubious means, and she could not be attributed any wrong on her part---Government department could not be allowed to take benefit of its own oversight,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492