1972 PLP 127 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SULEMAN KHAN‑Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SEC`RETARY,
| Citation | 1972 PLP 127 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SULEMAN KHAN‑Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SEC`RETARY, |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1972 PLP 127 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1972 PLP 127 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1972 PLP 127 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SULEMAN KHAN‑Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SEC`RETARY,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khalid M. Ishaq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Shafiq Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 16th February 1972.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan at Karachi, dated the 26th January 1971, in Coast. Petition No. 2 of 1971). Civil services‑Seniority, right of‑M successfully passing qualifying examination for promotion to higher post and placed al serial No. 13 in list of persons qualified for promotion‑System of qualifying examination abolished subsequently with result that per sons who had not passed qualifying examination but were otherwise senior to M were placed higher in list of eligible candidates for promotion‑Held, M by passing qualifying examination, under system then prevailing, had not acquired any vested right and could nor ask for enforcement of such right‑Constitution of Pakistan (1962) Art. 98.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑The petitioner, who was an Inspector, in the office of the Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs, Karachi, passed the prescribed qualifying examination successfully for promotion to Class II Post of Deputy Superintendent in the same department. According to the directive of the Central Board of Revenue made in March 1957, the system of qualifying examination was the only channel of promotion to the post of Class II Deputy Superintendent. After the petitioner passed the examination, his name was placed at serial No. 13 in the list of Inspectors who were qualified for promotion. However, the Central Board of Revenue, by a fresh directive issued on the 8th of October 1970, abolished the system of qualifying examina tion, with the result that respondents Nos. 4 to 11, who were basically senior to the petitioner but had not passed the qualifying examination, were placed senior to him in the list of the eligible candidates for promotion as Deputy Superintendents. The petitioner sought to challenge this latter directive of the Central Board of Revenue in writ jurisdiction of the High Court, on the contention that this has resulted to his prejudice by altering the terms and conditions of his service, and that it was, therefore, without lawful authority and ineffective against his rights. The High Court has dismissed the writ petition, leading to this petition for special leave to appeal. It is obvious that the mere fact that the petitioner had passed the qualifying examination at the time when the system of examination for promotion was in vogue, did not create any vested right in the petitioner for promotion as Deputy Superinten dent. If the Central Board of Revenue has since altered the channel of promotion, the petitioner cannot make a legitimate grievance of it as an infringement of any legal right amounting to alteration in the terms and conditions of his service. As no right had vested in the petitioner for promotion by his having, passed the examination under the old system, he cannot ask for the enforcement of that right, and his petition was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the High Court. It seems that in effect the petitioner is claiming seniority over respondents Nos. 4 to 11 on the ground of his having passed the qualifying examination, which the respondents had not. His effort to achieve that object by means of a writ petition in the High Court was entirely mis conceived. This petition is dismissed. Leave refused