1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUNAWAR AHMAD MIRZA, J.‑‑‑Petitioner after qualifying Competitive Examination, joined Pakistan Audit and Accounts in Grade‑17 during year 1966. In due course he got promoted to Grade‑20, and presently is holding post of Director‑General (Audit), Pakistan Railways. Towards beginning of 1995 five (5) vacancies were caused in Grade‑21, which had to be filled by promotion through Selection Board, considering suitability, seniority and criteria of quantification evaluating the A.C.Rs.

2. The available record reveals that department forwarded list of 20 persons, who were ripe for promotion to Grade‑

21. The Selection Board held its meeting on 18‑7‑1995 and considering the instructions contained in Estacode and criteria laid for selection of superior officers; recommended five persons, out of whom three were undisputedly senior to petitioner but other two namely, A.R. Arif (respondent No. 3) and Mrs. Sumbal Nazar Sheikh f respondent No. 4) factually ranked junior to him. On becoming aware of such recommendations the petitioner filed a representation through proper channel but same was returned on the ground of being premature. Subsequent on 16‑8‑1995 recommendations made by the Selection Board were approved whereupon petitioner submitted fresh representation on 23‑8‑1995.

3. Since grievances of petitioner were not redressed he instituted Appeal No. 402/L/1995 before Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which was dismissed on 15‑1‑1996 mainly on the grounds of being barred by time; failure to make representation regarding expunction of contents in the A.C.Rs. within prescribed period and jurisdiction of Federal Service Tribunal to entertain the matter. This decision of Service Tribunal has been challenged through present petition for leave to appeal.

4. It is not out of place to mention here, that meanwhile another vacancy occurred (which for convenience may be termed as sixth vacancy). The same was again filled on the recommendations of Selection Board by superseding the petitioner primarily on the ground of having earned 'Average A.C.Rs.' on several occasions which did not qualify the required threshold. Petitioner challenged his supersession before Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 1186/95. This petition was eventually dismissed primarily as the grievances agitated by him did not fall within the ambit of High Court, and Federal Service Tribunal alone had exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same.

5. Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court, for the petitioner, urged that representations regarding his supersession against respondents Nos. 3 and 4 was filed within stipulated period and every factor, relating to his alleged disability for promotion had been questioned. Therefore, observation in the impugned judgment about failure to challenge the A.C.Rs. is not justified. Learned counsel canvassed that admittedly none of the A.C.Rs. showing average report were canveyed to petitioner. Thus there was hardly any occasion for specifically challenging its correctness. He maintained that on the peculiar circumstances the appeal before Federal Service Tribunal was certainly maintainable on the strength of ratio- decidendi in PLD 1995 SC 556 (Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary. Health Division v. Dr. Najmul Ghani Khan). It was argued that reporting authority and countersigning authority of A.C.Rs., was same officer which reflects glaring mala fides but Tribunal has unjustifiably ignored this aspect.

6. On careful examination of background, circumstances of the case and legal controversy we feel that following questions of law having public importance arise in this petition:‑ (i) Whether or not representation of an aggrieved person against supersession includes challenge to quantification, propriety of A.C.Rs. and criteria for selection? (ii) Whether or not A.C.Rs. which are obviously concealed from incumbent, though may not be adverse, yet directly affect the future career and his right of further promotion can be challenged by way of appeal before Federal Service Tribunal? (iii) Whether writ petition challenging propriety of undisclosed A.C.Rs, can constitute notice to competent authority and be substituted for representation to approach Federal Service Tribunal? (iv) Whether or not question of limitation for challenging A.C.Rs. would be relatable to period when aggrieved person becomes aware about it?

7. Above discussed legal aspects require thorough consideration Therefore, we feel inclined to grant leave to appeal. A.A./S‑4/S Leave granted.