2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
SALEEM AKHTAR SIDDIQUI Versus SHUJAH AHMED and others
| Citation | 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hameed Dogar, C.J., Ijaz-ul-Hassan Khan and Ch. Ejaz Yousaf, JJ |
| Parties | SALEEM AKHTAR SIDDIQUI Versus SHUJAH AHMED and others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Hameed Dogar, C.J., Ijaz-ul-Hassan Khan and Ch. Ejaz Yousaf, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (SALEEM AKHTAR SIDDIQUI Versus SHUJAH AHMED and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Agha Tariq Mahmood Khan, D.A.-G., Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record and Zakaullah, S.O., Estb. Div. for Respondents.
- ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, C.J.--- It is, inter alia, contended by Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court that it was observed by the learned Federal Service Tribunal in the impugned judgment dated 25-1-2006 that as per promotion policy the requirement is to score 70% marks, since petitioner had scored more than 70% marks as such was entitled for promotion in BPS-20 which observation was maintained by this Court in Civil Petition No.200 of 2006. According to the learned counsel through petitioner was qualified for promotion but his case was not placed in the meetings of the Central Selection Board held in August, 2006 and May 2007. Feeling aggrieved, he filed Contempt Petition No.69 of 2007 before this Court which was disposed of on 10-1-2008 in following manner:---
Headnotes / Summary
(For implementation of the Court order, dated 10-11-2008 passed in Criminal Original Petition No.69 of 2007).
Art. 204
Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976), Ss.3/4
Supreme Court had directed the Secretary, Establishment Division, to consider the promotion case of petitioner in the regular meeting scheduled to be held in February, 2008
In view of the said direction of Supreme Court case of petitioner was placed in the meeting of the Central Selection Board held on 11-2-2008 and was superseded as he had failed to meet the required aggregate threshold of 70% marks
Case of petitioner was again placed in the meeting held on 17-7-2008 and was deferred on the ground that he had not yet earned PER for one full year after his supersession on 11-2-2008
Contention was that since petitioner was posted as OSD, therefore, PER was not required under Para.2.87 of Guide to Performance Evaluation Report
Central Selection Board, in circumstances, was directed to consider the case of petitioner in its meeting going to be held in November, 2008
Contempt petition was disposed of accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, C.J.
It is, inter alia, contended by Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court that it was observed by the learned Federal Service Tribunal in the impugned judgment dated 25-1-2006 that as per promotion policy the requirement is to score 70% marks, since petitioner had scored more than 70% marks as such was entitled for promotion in BPS-20 which observation was maintained by this Court in Civil Petition No.200 of 2006. According to the learned counsel through petitioner was qualified for promotion but his case was not placed in the meetings of the Central Selection Board held in August, 2006 and May 2007. Feeling aggrieved, he filed Contempt Petition No.69 of 2007 before this Court which was disposed of on 10-1-2008 in following manner:
"The Secretary, Establishment Division present in person states that the case of petitioners is complete in all respects for placement before the Selection Board to be considered for promotion in pursuance of the order of this Court in the special or regular meeting whichever is earlier held and in any case, he will be considered in the regular meeting already scheduled to be held in February, 2008. Learned counsel states in view of the direction of this Court the case of the petitioner was placed in the meeting of the CSB held on 11-2-2008 and was superseded as he had failed to meet the required aggregate threshold of 70 marks. The case of the petitioner was again placed in the meeting held on 17-7-2008 and was deferred on the ground that he has not yet earned PER for one full year after his supersession on 11-2-2008. Learned counsel stated that since petitioner was posted as OSD, therefore, PER is not required under Para 2.87 of Guide to Perfromance Evaluation Report.
2. In view of above, we direct Central Selection Board to consider the case of petitioner in its meeting going to be held in November, 2008. Accordingly, the contempt petition is disposed of. N.H.Q./S-1/SC. Order accordingly.