| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2008 SLG 1222 2008 SLD 1222 2008 PLC 255 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petitions Nos.326-K, 382-K, 383-K and 384-K of 2006, decided on 7th March, 2007, Date of hearing: 7th March, 2007. (On appeal from the judgment, dated 20-4-2006 in Appeals Nos.14 of 2002, 204 of 2Q00, 13 of 2002 and 17 of 2002, passed by the Sindh S
SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD AND HAMID ALI MIRZA, JJ
Ansari Abdul Lateef, Advocate Supreme Court and Mazhar Ali B. Chohan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P.L.A. No.326-K of 2006). Ibrar Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P.L.As. Nos.383-K and
Civil Petitions Nos.326-K, 382-K, 383-K and 384-K of 2006, decided on 7th March, 2007, Date of hearing: 7th March, 2007. (On appeal from the judgment, dated 20-4-2006 in Appeals Nos.14 of 2002, 204 of 2Q00, 13 of 2002 and 17 of 2002, passed by the Sindh S
SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD AND HAMID ALI MIRZA, JJ
Ansari Abdul Lateef, Advocate Supreme Court and Mazhar Ali B. Chohan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P.L.A. No.326-K of 2006). Ibrar Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P.L.As. Nos.383-K and
MUMTAZ ALI NARAI
VS
CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH, KARACHI and others
Law: Sindh Civil Servants Act, (XIV of 1973)
Section: 9
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 212(3)
(a) Sindh Civil Servants Act (XIV of 1973)--- ----S. 9---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)---Promotion---Quota system---Promotees and direct recruitment, principle of---Applicability---Grievance of civil servants was that they were initially appointed on acting charge basis and subsequently inducted, therefore, their promotion could not be effected---Validity---Every time when vacancy had become available, the post was to be filled in the proportion as per ratio for the promotees and direct recruitment etc.---Civil servants having not been appointed according to the ratio/quota of their category, therefore, they could not have been adjusted/appointed against the category to which they did not belong---Mere fact that they were initially appointed on acting charge basis and were subsequently, inducted on regular basis would not, by itself, change the rules and the law laid down by Supreme Court---Provincial Government was quite competent in law to issue notification in case ratio between two categories was not in accordance with rules and law laid down by Supreme Court---Notification of promotion of respondents issued by Provincial Government was legal, proper and in accordance with law, consequently no interference was called for---Judgment of Service Tribunal was based on cogent reasons and law, laid down by Supreme Court, which needed no interference of Supreme Court---Leave to appeal was refused. Federation of Pakistan v. Azam Ali and others 1985 SCMR 386; Muhammad Nawaz Khan v. Muhammad Ijaz Rashid PLD 1993 SC 10 and Nasim-ul-Haque Malik v. Chief Secretary, Sindh and others 1991 PLC (C.S.) (sic) rel. (b) Civil service--- ----Seniority---Vested right---Seniority list---Scope---Doctrine of locus poenitentiae---Applicability---Seniority is not a vested right of civil servant---Placement of any civil servant in seniority list over and above other civil servants does not confer any vested right on him to invoke doctrine of locus poententiae. Pakistan v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi PLD 1969 SC 407 and Muhammad Zakir Khan v. Government of Sindh and others 2004 SCMR 497 rel. JUDGMENT HAMID ALI MIRZA,…
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