1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

24. Mr. Muhammad Latif, Lecturer in On deputation to Sociology Govt. College, Larkana. Federal Government.

25. Syed Husan Raza Jafri, Lecturer in On deputation to Geography Government College, Nigeria. Hyderabad.

27. Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Awan, Lecturer in On deputation to Economics, Government College, Federal Government. Sukkur.

30. Mr. Ali Akbar Oureshi, Lecturer in On deputation to. Maths. Government College, Dadu.

194. Syed Muhammad Kazmani, Lecturer in On study leave. Physics, Government Sup. Science College, Khairpur.

195. Mr. Muhammad Tahir Qureshi, Onr deputationto Lecturer in Zoology, Government Federal Government. College, Tando Muhammad Khan.

196. Sayed Waqar Ali, Lecturer in Physics, On deputation to Government College, Sukkur. PAY.

197. Dr. Abdul Samad Siddiqui, Lecturer in On deputation to Economics, Government College, P.I.D.C. Hyderabad. In the concluding para. of the notification, it was made clear that "these promotions are ordered subject to examination of the claims of any from individual officers senior to the promotees, or such officers whose claim might not have been considered. (6) Government of Sindh (Education Department‑) Notification No.SO‑(E 1)‑10,/25‑78(c), dated 3‑6‑1979.

16. Sahib Khan Channa, Lecturer, in On deputation as Political Science, Government College, Director or Larkana. Archieves

29. Abdul Wasi Oureshi, Lecturer On deputation to Government College, Dadu. Federal Government.

30. Roshan Ali Shaikh, Lecturer in Physics, ‑‑do‑ Government College, Larkana.

10. Apparently I do not see any reason which obliged the Government in the Education Department to ignore the case of the appellant who was also on deputation like those twelve mentioned in the above. It could not be shown to us by the respondent Department as to how the case of the appellant was different and distinguishable from other cases in which promotion was allowed. At the time, the above promotions were considered, appellant had not incurred any disqualification. Had the appellant been considered in 1978 and again in 1979, he would have been promoted to Grade‑18 as Assistant Professor in absentia like others. As consistently laid down by the superior Courts, even in respect of purely administrative acts, there is duty to act justly, fairly and reasonably. In view of this position we have no hesitation to observe that the appellant was discriminated to the extent discussed in the above. As regards issue No. (iv) the legal position as asserted by the counsel of the appellant merited consideration. As provided under Rule 4 sub‑rule (i) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974, Chief Minister was the appointing Authority for Grade‑17 and above. In the amended rules notified on 11th February, 1985, Chief Secretary has been made the appointing Authority for posts sanctioned in B.S.

18. Again as per Rule 3 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1975, Chief Minister is the authority competent to hear appeals and entertain representation against the order of the Chief Secretary.

11. In view of the above legal position the appellant has rightly made B appeal/departmental representation to the Governor and M.L.A. Zone `C', since there was no elected Government in February, 1984: Martial Law was lifted on 31‑12‑1985 and as such the representation addressed to M.L.A. Zone `C' was then to be attended by Chief Minister who was very much available on 30‑9‑1986 the date when the representation, was "Considered by the Chief Secretary and rejected". The counsel of the appellant argued that the then Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh should not have sat on judgment against his own orders and as such while rejecting the representation of the appellant, he had acted without jurisdiction. The impugned order thus passed in violation of the rules cited above, is bad in the eyes of law. Mr. Ahmad Khan Barakzai, the State Counsel endorsed the views of the Counsel of the appellant and suggested that the case may be remanded back to the Government for suitable orders of the competent authority viz. the Chief Minister in the instant case. In view of the above discussion, the objection of the Appellant's counsel which is conceded by the counsel of the Government respondent, is sustained. Incidentally no law/rule/Government policy was shown to indicate that disciplinary action initiated on a date much subsequently to the date when the promotion had become due, could be considered a bar for the normal seniority and other consequential benefits available to the appellant under the rules.

12. In the instant case the appellant like others was entitled to the promotion as Assistant Professor in B.S. 18 in absentia firstly in 1978 and then in 1979, whereas the disciplinary action was initiated against him in 1982. Further, the penalty of censure awarded to the appellant was not a bar to his promotion when on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee the appellant was promoted in Grade‑18 as Assistant Professor on 29‑1‑1984. This being the position why penalty of Censure imposed in 1983 should have an adverse impact on an entitlement, which fell due to him in 1978 and 1979. I am also not persuaded with the suggestion that the case be remanded back for decision by the competent authority in view of the earlier cited legal position since it would simply prolong the appellant's agony of litigation specially in the circumstances when none of the private respondents has contested his claim of seniority.

13. For the foregoing reasons, I accept the appeal with no order as to costs, and further direct that the appellant shall be allowed seniority from the date his juniors have been promoted with consequential benefit admissible under the rules. H.B.T./220/Sr. S Appeal accepted.