Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 1701 2011 SLD 1701 2011 PLC 596
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 780 of 2006, decision dated: 9-12-2010. (On appeal against the judgment dated 18-3-2004 passed by Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in W.P. No.22 of 2001).
JAVED IQBAL, TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED AND ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Miss ZUBAIDA KHATOON

VS

Mrs. TEHMINA SAJID SHEIKH and others Miss ZUBAIDA KHATOON vs Mrs. TEHMINA SAJID SHEIKH and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether High Court was justified to substitute findings recorded by Departmental Promotion Committee relating to promotion of petitioner and respondent. (b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)--- ----S. 4---Appeal to Service Tribunal---Principles---Any civil servant who is aggrieved by an order with respect to terms and conditions of his service has a right of appeal before appropriate Tribunal established for such purpose, within the period prescribed---No right of appeal is provided to a civil servant against order of departmental authority determining "fitness" or otherwise of a person to be appointed or "hold a particular post" or to be "promoted" to a higher post or grade. (c) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)--- ----S. 4---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.199 & 212---Seniority---Question of eligibility---Consideration---Jurisdiction of High Court---Notification of promotion of appellant was set aside by High Court under constitutional jurisdiction and authorities were directed to promote the respondent---Validity---Promotion Committee seized of issue of inter se seniority of parties was not considering question of eligibility of respondent to be promoted or to hold certain post but her fitness with reference to service record and having examined comparative merits recommended appellant to be promoted and to be senior to respondent---In terms of recommendations made by Promotion Committee, notification was issued which was annulled by High Court---Against such notification of promotion, respondent had no right of appeal in view of specific bar contained in clause `b' of proviso to S.4(1) of Service Tribunals Act, 1973---Judgment passed by High Court was not violative of mandate of Art. 199 read with Art. 212 of the Constitution, as the respondent could not have challenged the notification in question before Service Tribunal in view of specific bar contained in S. 4(1) of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, and main grievance of respondent was that her service record was not considered while deciding the question of her fitness to be promoted---After…
🔒
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