1996 PLP 649 (PLC(CS))

ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).‑‑‑By this single judgment, we propose to dispose of these two Appeals Nos. 346(R) of 1995 and 359(R) of 1995 filed by M/s. M. Anwar Hussain and Nasimul Hasnain Naqvi, respectively, as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the appeals.

2. The facts of Appeal No.346(R) of 1995 filed by Mr. M. Anwar Hussain, are that he was appointed as Senior Teacher (B‑17) with effect from 2‑5‑1975 in Islamabad Model Institutions and on introduction of entire formula in Islamabad Model Institutions the appellant was redesignated as Lecturer (B‑17). According to him, he is at Sl. No. 1 of the seniority list of the Lecturers (B‑17). In the meantime, the Ministry of Education vide Notification dated 27th June, 1995, promoted 31 (thirty‑one) Junior Lecturers as Assistant Professors (B‑I8), and the appellant though senior was superseded on the basis of A.C.Rs for the years 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1981. He filed departmental appeal and was informed vide letter dated 20‑8‑1995 that his request will be considered in the next D.P.C. meeting as and when convened. He then filed this appeal before the Tribunal on 13‑9‑1995.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the D.P.C. considered the A.C.Rs. of the appellant for the years 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1981 which contained adverse remarks but remarks were never communicated to the appellant as to provide him opportunity to agitate, which brought down the thresh‑hold, and as such reports should not have been taken into account under the rules. He urged that the matter needs reconsideration.

4. The facts of Appeal No. 359(R) of 1995, in brief, are that the appellant Mr. Nasimul Hasnain Naqvi is also working as Lecturer (B‑17) and is at S

1. No.2 of the seniority list. According to him, he was superseded by his 31 (thirty‑one) juniors vide order dated 31‑5‑1989, and after exhausting departmental remedy, he brought his grievance before the Tribunal by filing Service Appeal No. 387(R) of 1989. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 8‑8‑1990 accepted the appeal holding that the A.C.Rs of the appellant for the period 1975 to 1980 having not been countersigned and un-communicated were incompetent and were to be ignored from consideration and the supersession of the appellant on the basis of those A.C.Rs was not justified. According to the appellant, the same A.C.Rs were considered by the D.P.C. while promoting his juniors vide Notification dated 27‑6‑1995 and he was superseded. Being aggrieved, he made departmental appeal on 6‑7‑1995, and in reply he was informed vide letter dated 20th August, 1995 that his case for promotion was sent to the Ministry of Education but the D.P.C. did not approve his promotion. Finally, he filed this appeal before the Tribunal on 27‑9‑1995.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal in its judgment in earlier Appeal No. 387(R) of 1989 had directed that the A.C.Rs. for the years 1970 to 1985 in spite of being adverse but not communicated were not to be taken into consideration while considering his case for promotion, but in spite of that, the D.P.C. again took into account those A.C.Rs. on the basis of which the appellant could not achieve the requisite thresh‑hold of 50 and has wrongly been superseded, and his case needs reconsideration.

6. These appeals came up for hearing on 6‑11‑1995 but there was no appearance on behalf of the Ministry of Education and we passed a. detailed order dated 6‑11‑1995. None of the respondents filed objections. We summoned the record from the Establishment Division and the Federal Directorate of Education. In pursuance of the directions, Mr. M. Rafiq Malik, Director and Mr. Abdul Hakim Rahi appeared alongwith the record. Mr. Muhammad Ismail, Assistant Educational Adviser, Ministry of Education also appeared but without record and comments.

7. The departmental representative of the Establishment Division has brought the D.P.C. minutes and we have perused the record. It appears that the D.P.C. comprising Education Secretary, as Chairman and Joint Education Adviser, Ministry of Education and Director‑General (Education) was held on 8‑2‑1995, considered the cases of Lecturers for promotion to the post of Assistant Professors (B‑18), and after examining the A.C.Rs., deferred both the appellants due to low grading, but the Establishment Secretary did not agree and ordered supersession of the appellants. As already observed, that the A.C.Rs. of Mr. Anwar Hussain, appellants for the years 1978 to 1981 and that of Mr. Nasimul Hasnain Naqvi for the years 1975 to 1980 were taken into account and were not recommended for promotion due to less thresh‑hold from 50 to 48 and 44 respectively which led to their supersession. The departmental representative of the Establishment Division categorically submitted that had these reports, to be adverse, not considered, the thresh‑hold might have been above 50 and both being senior were eligible for promotion. The Director of the Federal Directorate submitted that there was nothing on record that adverse remarks were communicated to appellants. Mr. Muhammad Ismail, Assistant Educational Adviser, Ministry of Education submitted that he had pointed out this discrepancy to the Committee in case of Mr. Nasimul Hasnain Naqvi but was not given any consideration. It is thus clear that in the case of appellant Mr. Anwar Hussain, the A.C.Rs. for the years 1978 to 1981 being below average did not deserve consideration while considering his case for promotion as these were not communicated to appellant. Similarly, in the case of Mr. Nasimul Hasnain Naqvi, the Tribunal in his earlier Appeal No. 387(R) of 1989 had directed that the impugned A.C.Rs. for the years 1975 to 1980 were incompetent and were not to be taken into account while considering the case of the appellant for promotion, but on the contrary, these reports have been given due consideration thus superseding him again, which is unjust and illegal. We are of the considered view that the supersession of both the appellants is illegal, and their cases deserve reconsideration. We, therefore, direct that the abovementioned A.C.Rs. of both the appellants shall not be taken into account and their cases be placed before the D.P.C. for consideration for promotion as Assistant Professors (B‑18) without delay. Both the appeals are accepted to the extent indicated above. H.B.T./11/Sr.F ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeals accepted.