1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN Versus CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION and others
| Citation | 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN Versus CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION and others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN Versus CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shah Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents,
- Date of hearing: 24th November 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 6‑7‑1993, of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, passed in Appeal No. 102(R)/93). ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Civil servant had fulfilled all qualifications for regular promotion with effect from June 1985‑‑‑Service Tribunal while dismissing civil servant's appeal took the view that eligibility was not consideration for promotion but suitability and fitness of a person to a particular post‑‑‑Case of Department was that civil servant was not eligible to be considered in Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on 5‑7‑1988 and he was promoted on his turn on seniority‑cum‑fitness basis on 27‑5‑1991‑‑‑Civil servant was, thus, not considered for promotion by Departmental Promotion Committee on 5‑7‑1988‑‑‑Service Tribunal had clearly misread the Department's stand‑‑‑Department's stand was not that civil servant was not found fit for promotion but that he was not eligible‑‑‑Civil servant having possessed requisite qualifications for promotion with effect from June 1985; prima facie, he was eligible for consideration for regular promotion against quota reserved for such qualified persons‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 6‑7‑1993.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner joined T&T Department, as a Telecom. Technician in 1966, He was promoted to the post of Engineering Supervisor (B‑11) with effect from 1‑8‑1977. By Gazette Notification dated September 2, 1981, the Sub‑Engineer, eligible for promotion to BPS‑16 should possess Diploma in Engineering or B.Sc. should have rendered 10 years service in T&T Department and should have also passed the qualifying examination. 25 per cent quota was reserved for persons holding B.Sc. Degrees; the remaining 75% posts of Assistant Engineers (BPS‑16) had to be filled in on seniority‑cum‑fitness basis. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in accordance with SOR‑1977(1)/81, dated 15‑8‑1981, the petitioner fulfilled all qualifications for regular promotion as Assistant Engineer/SDO (BPS‑16) with effect from June, 1985, when he obtained B.Sc. Degree. The petitioner made repeated requests that he be given promotion as Assistant Engineer (BPS‑16) with effect from June, 1985. He was promoted on 27‑5‑1991. Since the petitioner had not been promoted from June 1985, he filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment. The learned Tribunal observed that eligibility is not consideration for promotion, but there are other factors also which are subject to scrutiny by the DPC to assess the suitability and fitness of a person for promotion to a particular post. His case was considered by the DPC held on 5‑7‑1988, but was not approved. He was correctly promoted on his turn on seniority‑cum‑fitness basis on 27‑5 1991."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that eligibility of the petitioner has been determined by the Tribunal and it is also not disputed by the Department, but the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that his case was considered by the DPC held on 5‑7‑1988. The case of the department is that he was not eligible to be considered in the DPC held on 5‑7‑1988. He was promoted on his turn on seniority‑cum‑fitness basis on 27‑5‑1991. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner was not considered for promotion in the DPC held on 5‑7‑1.988. There is clear misreading made by the Tribunal. It is not the case of the department that he was not found fit for promotion before 1988. As the petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications for promotion w.e.f. June 1985, therefore, prima facie he was eligible for consideration for regular promotion against 25 per cent quota. Leave to appeal is granted. AA./M‑1886/S Leave granted.