1991 PLP 1558 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD — Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY, WAPDA, ISLAMABAD and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1558 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Ajmal Mian, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ARSHAD — Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY, WAPDA, ISLAMABAD and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1558 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1558 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Ajmal Mian, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1558 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ARSHAD — Petitioner Versus SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY, WAPDA, ISLAMABAD and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ejaz Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. A. Aasim Jafri, Advocate -on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th February, 1990.
- Ejaz Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. A. Aasim Jafri, Advocate -on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order dated 11-11-1989 of the Federal Service Tribunal).
SA(1)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Seniority not being the only criterion for promoting an officer to higher grade, Departmental Authority considered case of petitioner for promotion, but found him not fit to be appointed to higher grade
Tribunal had also rejected appeal of petitioner on ground that it was barred by second proviso to S.4(1) of Act
No question of law being involved in petition leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑The petitioner is aggrieved by the promotion of Sher Ali, respondent No.2. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the appeal on the ground that it was tarred by second proviso to section 4(1) of the Service Tribunal Act; according to which no appeal shall lie to the Tribunal against an order of a departmental authority determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed or hold a particular post or to be appointed to a higher grade. The case of the petitioner was considered by the competent authority and he was not found to be a fit person for promotion. Seniority is not the only criterion for promoting an officer to the higher grade. The departmental authority has not considered him fit to be appointed to the higher post. No question of law is involved in this petition. Leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1285/S Leave refused.