Case Details

Citation(s)
2002 SLG 1199 2002 SLD 1199 2002 SCMR 574
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 1464 of 1997, decision dated: 22-10-2001.(On appeal from judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, dated 11-7-1996 passed in Service Appeal No. 138(R) of 1996)
MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI, MUNIR A. SHEIKH AND RANA BHAGWANDAS, JJ
Habibul Wahab AlKhairi, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.K.M.A. Samdani, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehi Khan, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent No. 1.
Respondents Nos. 2 to 13. Ex parte.
Respondent No. 13 (

ABDUL GHAFOOR, SUPERVISOR/INSPECTOR, N.H. A.

VS

NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY and 12 others

Law:

Section:

(a) National Highway Authority (Appointment and Promotion) Rules, 1995----R.20(2)---Seniority---Service' of work-charge employees, after their induction in regular service, would be counted towards qualifying service only for consideration of promotion, pay and pension, but riot for purposes of seniority. (b) National Highway Authority (Appointment and Promotion) Rules, 1995--- ------Rr. 8, 9, 10, .11 & Third Sched---Eligibility for promotion---Respondent though not possessing prescribed qualification, was promoted as Assistant Director (BS-17) on work-charge basis by Departmental Selection Committee, whereas appellant possessing such qualification was not even considered for such promotion---Appellant's appeals against his supersession filed before Department and Service Tribunal were dismissed---Validity--­Prescribed qualification for eligibility to such promotion was Diploma in Civil Engineering from a recognised .Institute with 10 years' service experience---Departmental Selection Committee was vested with discretion and Authority might be competent to promote an employee on acting charge basis by relaxing the prescribed length of service, but there was no such discretion with the Authority to dispense with or relax the prescribed academic qualifications---Respondent did not possess such qualifications, whereas appellant was eligible for consideration for promotion--­Supreme Court accepted the appeal and declared the promotion of respondent as illegal and directed the Authority to process the promotion cases of Diploma-Holders against available vacancies on an early date. (c) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)--- ----S. 4(1)(b)---Promotion---Appeal---Maintainability---Appeal to Service Tribunal would not be competent against an order of departmental Authority determining fitness of a civil servant to be promoted to a higher post or grad or to be appointed to or hold a particular post---Where, however, a civil servant although eligible for consideration for promotion was ignored and other ineligible were promoted, then his appeal to Service Tribunal asking for enforcement of his such legal right would be competent. Civil Appeals Nos. 1237 to 1253, 1255…
🔒
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