1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Syed ANWAR SHAH and 2 others Versus Rana MUHAMMAD ASIF and another
| Citation | 1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Muhammad Ilyas, JJ |
| Parties | Syed ANWAR SHAH and 2 others Versus Rana MUHAMMAD ASIF and another |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Muhammad Ilyas, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Syed ANWAR SHAH and 2 others Versus Rana MUHAMMAD ASIF and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Saeed-ur-Rehman Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- S.M. Tayyab, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th October, 1995.
- Mian Saeed‑ur‑Rehman Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- S.M. Tayyab, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 28-6-1995 in Writ Petition No. 4908 of 1993).
S. 4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199, 212 & 185(3)-- Appointment of Tehsildars from amongst subordinate officials
Seventeen per cent. of posts were required to be filled by promotion through selection on merits from. amongst subordinate officials such as Assistants and Senior Scale Stenographers, working in, the Board of Revenue and offices subordinate to it who had at least three years'. experience
Petitioners whose total length of service was longer than that of respondent were selected in preference to him-- Respondent's Constitutional petition was allowed by the High Court on the ground that while making appointments of Tehsildars, Selection Board should not have taken into consideration total length of service of officials but that it should have confined itself to the seniority in the cadre of Assistants-- Petitioners" contention was that High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain Constitutional petition by respondent for matter in question fell exclusively within the competence of Service Tribunal
Such - objection, however, was raised by the Government before High Court but it was rejected on the ground that fitness of promotion of Government servant was involved in the case and that such controversy could not be raised before Service Tribunal
Petitioners claimed that view taken by High Court was incorrect for the controversy related not to the fitness of respondent for promotion as Tehsildar but to the determination of the principle governing selection of Tehsildar, that is, whether -for purpose of appointment as Tehsildar, service of an official as Assistant only should be relevant or that entire service of official should be taken into account
Such question was to be decided in the light of terms and conditions of parties and was well within, competence of Service Tribunal
Leave to appeal was granted to examine the contention raised.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioners joined service as junior clerks before respondent No. 1; as such they were senior to him in the grade of junior clerks. However, respondent No. 1 received his promotions as senior clerk and as assistant prior to the petitioners. Consequently, in the grade of assistant he became senior to them. '
2. In the cadre of Tehsildars 17 per cent. of the posts were required to be filled by promotion through selection on merits from amongst the subordinate officials such as assistants and senior scale stenographers working in the Board of Revenue and the officers subordinate to it who had at least three years' experience. The petitioners whose total length of service was longer than that of the respondent No.l, were selected for appointment in preference to him. He filed a Constitution petition in the High Court. It was allowed on the ground that while making appointments of Tehsildars the Selection Board should not have taken into consideration the total lengths of service of the officials but that it should have confined itself to the seniority in the cadre of assistants. The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court.
3. In support of this petition it is contended that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition of respondent No. l as the matter fell exclusively within the competence of the Punjab Service Tribunal. It is to be noticed that this objection was also raised by the Government before the High Court but it was rejected on the ground that in this case the fitness to promotion of a Government servant was involved and that this controversy could not be raised before the Service. Tribunal. It is stated that the view taken by the High Court is incorrect for the controversy related not to the fitness of respondent No .l for promotion as Tehsildar but to the determination of the principle governing the selection of Tehsildars, that is, whether for the purpose of appointment as Tehsildar the service of an official as Assistant only should be relevant or that the entire service of the official should be taken into account. This question was to be decided in the light of the terms and conditions of the parties and was well within the competence of the Service Tribunal.
4. The contention raised in support of this petition needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. The appellants should not be demoted during the pendency of the appeal. A.A./A‑1387/S Leave granted.