1984 PLP 1023 (SCMR)
IJAZ HUSSAIN SHAH-Appellant Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND 167 OTHERS -Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1023 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | -- Art. 212 (3)-Central Superior Services (Class I) Rules, 1965, r. 13 read with O. M., dated 27-1-1975, r. 12 (b) (i).(ii)-Civil services Seniority--Tribunal coming to conclusion that petitioner's appoint ment as Section Officer was not on regular basis but on ad hoc basis and that he was not entitled to seniority, among officers appointed on regular basis, under r. 13 of C. S. S. Rules, 1965-Petition for leave to appeal found to be without merit and dismissed.-Civil service. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | IJAZ HUSSAIN SHAH-Appellant Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND 167 OTHERS -Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1023 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1023 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the -- Art. 212 (3)-Central Superior Services (Class I) Rules, 1965, r. 13 read with O. M., dated 27-1-1975, r. 12 (b) (i).(ii)-Civil services Seniority--Tribunal coming to conclusion that petitioner's appoint ment as Section Officer was not on regular basis but on ad hoc basis and that he was not entitled to seniority, among officers appointed on regular basis, under r. 13 of C. S. S. Rules, 1965-Petition for leave to appeal found to be without merit and dismissed.-Civil service. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1023 (SCMR) (IJAZ HUSSAIN SHAH-Appellant Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND 167 OTHERS -Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Muhammad Yusuf Saraf, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 7th May, 1984.
- Kh. Muhammad Yusuf Saraf, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment, dated 27-11-1983 of the Federal Service Tribunal, passed in Appeal No. 135 (R) of 1982). -- Art. 212 (3)-Central Superior Services (Class I) Rules, 1965, r. 13 read with O. M., dated 27-1-1975, r. 12 (b) (i).(ii)-Civil services Seniority--Tribunal coming to conclusion that petitioner's appoint ment as Section Officer was not on regular basis but on ad hoc basis and that he was not entitled to seniority, among officers appointed on regular basis, under r. 13 of C. S. S. Rules, 1965-Petition for leave to appeal found to be without merit and dismissed.-[Civil service]. C. P. S. L. A. No. 671-R of 1983 ref.
Judgment & Decree
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.‑The petitioner, who had appeared at the 1967 Promotional Examination for appointment as Section Officer and had secured 92nd position, was appointed as a Section Officer in the Ministry of Education with effect from 27‑1‑1969. Feeling aggrieved by the seniority list of Section officers circulated on 16‑11‑1981 in which the petitioner was shown junior to the direct recruits of the year 1974, he represented to the departmental authorities and failing therein brought au appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which was, however, dismissed by the impugned order, dated 27‑I1‑1983. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. The main question for consideration before the Tribunal was whether the petitioner's appointment as a Section Officer on 27‑1‑1969 had been on a regular basis, entitling him to seniority under rule 13 of the C. S. S. Rules, 1965. The Tribunal same to the finding that the petitioner had not been appointed in .C. S. S. (Class I) on a regular basis but only on an ad hoc basis, and that he had remained so until the regularisation of his service in the Office Management Group, with effect from 27‑1‑1976.
3. The question raised had been examined by this Court in the peti tioner's earlier C. P. S. L. No. 671‑R of 1983, and after examination of the facts of the case and the rules applicable, it had been held that from the Promotional Examination held in 1967 only the first 18 persons in order of merit from among those qualified had been appointed to the service while the others who had also qualified but had not come within the quota of 18, were appointed subsequently on an ad hoc basis and that as such the petitioner's case was not governed by the C. S. S. (Class 1) Rules, 1965 nor did he come under category (i)' of rule 12 (h) of the O. M., dated 27‑1‑1975 creating the Officer Management Group but his case fell under category `(ii)' of that rule. He, therefore, could not claim seniority over direct recruits upto and including XIV Batch which, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, is the 1974 Batch. We, therefore, find no merit in this petition and accordingly dismiss the same. S. Q. Petition dismissed.