1990 PLP 927 (SCMR)
M.A. RAFIQUE — Petitioner Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR (POWER), WAPDA and 7 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 927 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ |
| Parties | M.A. RAFIQUE — Petitioner Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR (POWER), WAPDA and 7 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 927 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 927 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 927 (SCMR) (M.A. RAFIQUE — Petitioner Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR (POWER), WAPDA and 7 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th February, 1990.
- Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate-on-Record for the Petitioner.
- 3. Hafiz S.A. Rahman, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken up the two grounds as were urged before the Service Tribunal and did not find favour with it.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 30 10-1988 passed in Appeal No. 292(R) of 1985).
Art. 212(3)
Entitlement to
Civil servant's plea was that he having entered the service at a time when no such disqualification as enunciated by the Pakistan Engineering Policy letter dated 2-6-1977, was attached to a non-Graduate Engineer, the same should continue at all the higher stages for promotion in his case
Held, no right of promotion as claimed by civil servant was available with respect to the posts not actually held by him but to which he was likely to be promoted at a future date. Government of West Pakistan v. Fida Muhammad Khan PLD 1960 SC 45 and Province of West Pakistan v. Muhammad Akhtar Oureshi and others PLD 1962 SC 428 rel.
Art. 212(3)
Civil servant's grievance was that "h" those junior to him were promoted, he was excluded from consideration and was superseded
Service Tribunal had recorded a finding of fact that civil servant's name was considered by the Selection Board alongwith the names of respondents but was not considered fit to be promoted
Fact of deferment of civil servant for further promotion could not be challenged before Service Tribunal
Leave to appeal was refused. Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate-on-Record for the Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.
The petitioner, an Assistant Director in WAPDA, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 30-10-1988 whereby his appeal was dismissed.
2. The petitioner who was serving as a Junior Engineer with the WAPDA when his grievance arose, felt aggrieved by the promotion of those junior to him, and his super session. He entered the service of the Government in the Electricity Department of the N.-W. F. P., on 17-2-1959 and was transferred to WAPDA alongwith the Electricity Department. According to 1975 Rules of WAPDA, the posts of Executive Engineers were to be filled to the extent of not less than 75% by promotion. The petitioner happened to be a non-Graduate Engineer and previously there was no restriction or a disqualification attaching to such non -Graduate engineers. Subsequently, there was change in the policy whereby Graduate engineers were given preference in the matter of promotion. The first grievance of the petitioner was that he having entered service at a time when no such disqualification was attached to a non-Graduate engineer, the same should continue at all the higher stages for promotion for the petitioner. The second grievance was that when those junior to him were promoted, he was excluded from consideration and was superseded. The Tribunal examined these grounds and came to the conclusion as hereunder:-- "The upshot of the above discussion is that the appellant's case for promotion as Senior Engineer cannot be considered in view of the Pakistan Engineering Policy letter dated 2-6-1977. The appellant has been duly upgraded under the rules to B-18. His case for promotion can also not be equated with the respondents No. 5 to 8 who were not technical officers and were working in Store Organisation."
3. Hafiz S.A. Rahman, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken up the two grounds as were urged before the Service Tribunal and did not find favour with it.
4. There is established case-law on the subject of vested right in prospects of promotion. No such right as is claimed by the petitioner is available with respect to the posts not actually held by the civil servant but to which he is likely to be promoted at a future date. In the context one may refer to decisions of this Court in Government of West Pakistan v. Fida Muhammad Khan PLD 1960 SC 45, and Province of West Pakistan v. Muhammad Akhtar Oureshi and others PLD 1962 SC 428.
5. As regards the second contention, we find that the Service Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact to the following effect:-- "It was further pointed out that the appellant's name was considered by the Selection Board in its meetings held on 30-10-1976 and 19-4-1977 alongwith the names of the respondents No. 3 and
4. The appellant was not considered fit to be promoted as Senior Engineer by the Selection B Board on both the occasions whereas respondents No. 3 and 4 were considered fit and promoted as Senior Engineers. This fact of deferment of the appellant for further promotion by the Board, therefore, could not be challenged before the Tribunal under section 4(l) (b) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973."
6. No case for leave to appeal is made out and the petition is dismissed. AA./M-1255/S Leave refused.