1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Representation

• Abul Khair for Appellant.
• Date of hearing: 24th May, 1994.
• ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN): ‑‑Appellant Mr. Fayyaz Ahmed is working as Sub‑Engineer, Central Civil Division No. IV, Pak. PWD, Karachi. He has challenged the Notification, dated 24th May, 1993 Where under certain officers have been promoted as Assistant Executive Engineers (BPS‑17) with immediate effect. He made representation on 26‑5‑1993 and in reply he was informed vide letter, dated 20th October, 1993 that the case of the appellant was not considered by the DPC as he was junior and also that he had not passed the departmental examination. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that provision for the departmental examination was made later on and that at the time of appointment there was no such provision of passing the departmental examination, therefore, he being senior was to be considered for promotion. The appellant admittedly has not passed the departmental examination and in some cases exemption was also granted by the department, but in his case, no such exemption was granted for the reasons best known to him, as he has not placed any document on record w ether he ever applied for any exemption. The Government is competent to make rules in the exigency of service and no exception can be taken to it, and are binding on every civil servant. All the persons were promoted who were either, exempted or had passed the departmental examination, and the appellant having not fulfilled those conditions was not eligible, for promotion according to the rules. Accordingly, this appeal in view of proviso (b) to section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 is not competent. Furthermore, the appeal is also time‑barred, In the application for condonation of delay, the appellant has stated that he had been making representations and appeals to the higher authorities, and had been given assurance that his case for promotion will be considered and he kept waiting on their false promises, but on rejection of his appeal on 20‑10‑1993, he preferred this appeal. The explanation given by the appellant is without substance, as there is no rule which provides that a civil servant for redress of his grievance has to wait for an indefinite period, even on false promises, but under the rules, the appellant had to approach the Tribunal within thirty days of the communication of rejection order of his appeal, which was endorsed to the appellant by Superintendent Engineer on 2‑12‑1993, and this appeal was filed on 17‑4‑1994 after more than four months and there axe no cogent ground for condonation for delay, and the application is accordingly rejected. The appeal is patently time‑barred.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree