1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD SIDIQUE KHAN Versus AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT and others
| Citation | 1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Azad J & K |
| Bench Members | Service Tribunal Azad Jammu and Kashmir |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDIQUE KHAN Versus AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT and others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Azad J & K bench comprising: Service Tribunal Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD SIDIQUE KHAN Versus AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Raja Khizer Hayat Khan for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act (XXII of 1975)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Civil service‑‑‑Seniority‑‑‑Appellant, Head Constable, challenging promotion of respondents to posts of Assistant Sub‑Inspector of Police who held junior position qua seniority, academic qualification and good record of service as compared to the appellant‑‑‑Appellant was duly considered for promotion but on merits respondents/promotees were preferred over him‑‑‑Held, no employee could claim as of right a promotion from one position to another unless he could do so under a statutory provision or an enforceable condition of service‑‑ Promoting authority can only determine suitability of a servant for promotion after an assessment of all relevant considerations such as seniority, competence, rectitude and antecedent official record as none of them was less important than the other, for preservation of purity and efficiency in public service‑‑‑No appeal was competent under SA(b) of Service Tribunals Act, 1975, against an order or decision of a departmental authority determining fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed to or to hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher grade.‑‑‑[Civil service].
Judgment & Decree
The instant appeal is directed against the order of Deputy Inspector- General of Police passed vide Order Book No. 232, dated 26‑10‑1988 and against the order made by the Inspector‑General of Police under No. 1185/II- 16(19)/Admin/89, dated 4‑9‑1988 by which respondents Nos. 3 to 6 were promoted to the posts of A.S.‑I. in District Police at Muzaffarabad and were placed in BPS No. 5.
2. The relevant facts of the case to be briefly stated are that the appellant claims himself to be a senior most Head Constable to the respondents promotees 3 to
6. He was not promoted to the post of A.S.‑I. despite the facts that he was better qualified for promotion in view of his seniority, academic qualification, commendation certificates and good record of service as compared to the respondents promotees who held junior position.
3. The appellant's prayer is that the impugned order may be set aside and he may be promoted against the vacancies instead of respondent promotees.
4. We have carefully considered the arguments addressed at this stage of preliminary hearing. In the instant case we find that the appellant was duly considered for promotion but on merits the respondents promotees were preferred over him. Among the well‑known attributes of public service, one that is best subject to exception is that no employee can claim as of right a promotion from one position to another unless he could do so under a statutory provision or an enforceable condition of service. It is for promoting authority to determine the suitability of a person for promotion after an assessment of all relevant considerations such as, seniority, competence, rectitude and antecedent official record none of which is less important than the other, for the preservation of purity and efficiency in public service. Apart from that, no appeal lies under section 4(b) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1975 as amended upto date against an order or decision of a departmental authority determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed to or hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher grade.
3. In view of the above state of law, the present appeal is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. M.Y.H./76/Sr.A Appeal dismissed.