Case Details

Citation(s)
2022 SLG 1244 2022 SLD 1244 2022 PLC 783
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition Nos. 26387, 27255 and 30330 of 2021, heard on21st December, 2021.
ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, J
Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon, Shah Khawar, Barrister Haris Azmat, Naveed Ahmad Khawaja, Barrister Hamid Azim Leghari, Muhammad QasimTarar, Rafae Naguib Saigal and Barrister Maryam Hayat for Petitioners.Malik Khalid Shafique, A.A.G.-Pk. along with Ali Raza, Sect

Dr. MUHAMMAD AZEEM KHANVSFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division and another

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1962

Section: 199,112,198

(a) Civil Servants Promotion (BPS-18 to BPS-21), Rules, 2019--- ----Rr. 8 , 10(5)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 199 , 112---Promotion---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Fitness for promotion, determination of---Exclusive jurisdiction of Authorities---Exception---Officers of Police Service including Petitioners were considered for promotion from BPS-20 to BPS-21---Central Selection Board (CSB) recommended ‘supersession’ of petitioners in a meeting and did not promote them---Petitioners contended that after supersession instead of waiting for full one year, another CSB meeting was held in which petitioners were again superseded through impugned orders; that in CSB meeting only one year PER was considered whereas other PERs in which petitioners were found to be excellent’ were not considered; that no adverse material was there in PER, but the same was found from somewhere by CSB; that High Court had concurrent jurisdiction in the matter; that petitioners challenged the impugned orders being against Civil Servants Promotion (BPS-18 to BPS-21) Rules, 2019, hence constitutional petition was maintainable---Held, that meeting of CSB took place and impugned order/letter communicated in Federal Capital Territory, but the Federal Government was functioning all over the country, and petitioners being residents of the province could agitate their grievance within the territorial jurisdiction of High Court of said province in which the impugned orders had affected them---High Court had concurrent jurisdiction of adjudicating the matter---Matters being for determination of fitness of civil servants for promotion, Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction in the matter and bar of Art.112 of the Constitution was not applicable---Under R. 10(5) of the Rules, 2019 civil servant once superseded for promotion under R. 8 of the Rules, 2019, would be eligible for reconsideration only after earning one more PER of full year---Once the petitioners were superseded by CSB in its meeting under R.8(a), their cases could only be reconsidered for promotion after they earn one more PER of full one year as required under R.10(5) of the Rules, 2019---Argument made by Law Officer that…
🔒
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