Law:

Section:

Punjab Land Administration Manual ---.--- ---.--- -Para. 242 ---.--- Naib-tehsildar, appointment of ---.--- Respondent who was serving as Kanungo was not considered for promotion as Naib-tehsildar as the Departmental Promotion Committee had already reserved name of one of his senior colleagues for promotion as Naib-tehsildar ---.--- Legality ---.--- Seat of Naib-tehsildar had been illegally reserved by the Departmental Promotion Committee for a senior colleague of respondent, which clearly showed mala fide and favouritism on the part of the competent authority ---.--- Service Tribunal had rightly observed that the only reason for which the respondent could not be considered for promotion was that one of the five available posts of Naib-tehsildar had been reserved for his senior colleague; that said colleague was not recommended for promotion on account of pendency of an inquiry against him and so it was the respondent who could have been considered for promotion being the next in seniority ---.--- Besides senior colleague of respondent was working against an ex-cadre post out of district, as such was not working in his parent department, therefore, he being posted out of the district was ineligible for promotion ---.--- Service Tribunal had rightly given directions to consider respondent for antedated promotion of Naib-tehsildar with effect from the date when the vacancy of Naib-tehsildar had been reserved for his senior-colleague ---.--- Appeal was dismissed accordingly. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN, JUSTICE:---.--- Through this appeal with the leave of the Court, the appellants have called in question the judgment dated 28.04.2008 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter to be referred as "the Tribunal"), in Appeal No.1194/2005, whereby the said appeal filed by respondent No. 1 has been accepted with a direction to consider him for antedated promotion of Naib Tehsildar w.e.f. 03.05.2005 i.e., with effect from the date when the vacancy of Naib Tehsildar had been reserved for respondent No. 2 (Muhammad Sarwar, Kanungo). 2. The concise facts of the instant appeal are that respondent No.1 was serving as Kanungo and on…

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