2016 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MEHMOOD GHAZNAVI Versus KIU through Vice-Chancellor and 2 others
| Citation | 2016 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Alam and Yar Mohammad, JJ |
| Parties | MEHMOOD GHAZNAVI Versus KIU through Vice-Chancellor and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: Muhammad Alam and Yar Mohammad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MEHMOOD GHAZNAVI Versus KIU through Vice-Chancellor and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Munir Ahmed and Burhan Wali for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 26th March, 2015.
- 4. Counsel for petitioner failed to point out any discrimination with the petitioner in connection with promotion against suit post, nor the petitioner pointed out any promotion of any person depriving him from his due right of promotion etc., if any. We, therefore, hold that the petition in hand is groundless, at least at this stage of the case. This order shall not operate as any kind of estopple for promotion of petitioner if petitioner is otherwise eligible for the same.
Headnotes / Summary
Scope
Petitioner-employee was appointed as Stenographer in BPS-15
Post of Stenographer was upgraded from BPS-15 to BPS-16
Prior to said upgradation petitioner-employee was transferred from Stenographer (BS-15) to Administrative Officer (BS-16)
Plea of petitioner-employee was that he had worked as Stenographer and in that capacity he was entitled to be promoted to the post of Private Secretary (BS-17)
Promotion of petitioner-employee as Private Secretary from the post of Stenographer was possible only when he did not accept his promotion to the post of Administrative Officer (BS-16)
No discrimination had been pointed out with the petitioner-employee with regard to promotion against the suit post
Petitioner-employee had not pointed out promotion of any person depriving him from his due right of promotion if any
Writ petition was dismissed in circumstance
Chief Court observed that present order would not operate as estoppel for promotion of petitioner-employee if he was otherwise eligible for the same. Mir Akhlaq Hussain Legal Advisor to KIU.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.
Petitioner has sought his promotion as Private Secretary (BPS-17) w.e.f. 22-10-2009, through this writ petition.
2. In the grounds of petition, petitioner has contended that he was appointed as Stenographer in BPS-15 on 06-10-2002. Later on, the post of Stenographer was upgraded from BPS-15 to BPS-16 through Notification No.KIU-Senate-1(5)/2013/22516 dated 31st July, 2013. Prior to the said up-gradation, petitioner was transferred from Stenographer (BPS-15) of Dean Office to Examination Section of KIU as Administrative Officer (BPS-16) through order dated 22-01-2010.
3. We have heard the parties and have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for parties. Petitioner has prayed for his promotion on the ground that he has worked as Stenographer and in that capacity is entitled to be promoted to the post of Private Secretary (BPS-17). The contention of the petitioner to the extent that he worked as Stenographer is not disputed but respondents contend that petitioner accepted the post of Administrative Officer (BPS-16), therefore, now petitioner cannot be promoted as Private Secretary (BPS-17). It is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed as Stenographer on 06-10-2002 in BPS-15. Later on, the post of Stenographer was upgraded from BPS-15 to BPS-16. It is also not disputed that presently petitioner is holding the post of Administrative Officer (BPS-16). Petitioner accepted such promotion before the up-gradation of the post of Stenographer from BPS-15 to BPS-16. Petitioner served for more than seven (7) years as Stenographer and then was promoted as Administrative Officer (BPS-16). The most important question debated before us is that whether petitioner can be promoted from the post of Administrative Officer (BPS-16) to the post of Private Secretary (BPS-17), and that also assuming petitioner as Stenographer because petitioner has already availed promotion by accepting the post of Administrative Officer (BPS-16) after serving more than 7 years as Stenographer. Through the petition in hand, petitioner has prayed for his promotion in BPS-17 but from the post of Stenographer. The promotion of petitioner as Private Secretary from the post of Stenographer was admittedly possible only when petitioner did not accept his promotion to the post of Administrative Officer (BPS-16). Once it is admitted that petitioner accepted his promotion to the post of Administrative Officer (BPS-16), the question rises that whether, now petitioner can claim his promotion to the post of Private Secretary, assuming him as Stenographer? Petitioner and his counsel had no reply to this question.
4. Counsel for petitioner failed to point out any discrimination with the petitioner in connection with promotion against suit post, nor the petitioner pointed out any promotion of any person depriving him from his due right of promotion etc., if any. We, therefore, hold that the petition in hand is groundless, at least at this stage of the case. This order shall not operate as any kind of estopple for promotion of petitioner if petitioner is otherwise eligible for the same.
5. Petition dismissed. This file be consigned to record. ZC/134/GB Petition dismissed.