2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
BASHIR AHMED Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB and others
| Citation | 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMED Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB and others |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (BASHIR AHMED Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shehryar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Saleem Sikandar, A.I.-G. Legal for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th July, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 29-12-1998 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, in Appeal No.61 of 1995).
S.4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Promotion list-- Filing of appeal before Service Tribunal, with a delay of two decades-- Grievance of the civil servant was that he was not placed at the B-I list without taking requisite test, making him eligible for promotion
Plea raised by the civil servant was that two other civil servants had been placed on the list without such test
Civil servant was 54 years of age and he failed to explain as to why he kept silent for almost two decades after crossing the required age of 33 years before approaching the Service Tribunal for the relief
Holding of the requisite test was publicized and all the borrowing authorities and officers were informed so that the matter in question could be brought to the notice of all the eligible persons
Fact that two other persons had been brought on B-1 list without requisite test was not a justification for any Court of law to direct a similar thing in the present case
Supreme Court declined to give any relief to the civil servant as the Court was not seized of the circumstances in which the two civil servants had been brought on B-1 list and if the same hid been done in violation of the law even then the same was not a precedent for a Court of law to follow-- Supreme Court declined to interfere with the judgment passed by Service Tribunal
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.
The petitioner was recruited as a Constable on 18-12-1969. According to him he started approaching the higher police officers with a request that his name be place in list B-I on being placed on which list a Constable becomes eligible for promotion. As per his submissions he kept petitioning different authorities in the Police Department but remained unsuccessful. He ultimately reached the Punjab Service Tribunal for the purpose and his appeal was dismissed by the said Tribunal through a judgment dated 29-12-1998 on the ground that it could not be successfully established before the said Tribunal that the Superintendent of Police had not performed his obligations of publicizing the notice regarding the holding of the requisite test for being placed on list B-I and consequently on the ground that under the Departmental Rules such a test could be taken by a Police constable only up to the age of 33 years and that the petitioner had since long crossed that stage.
3. The A.I.G. (Legal) present in Court on behalf of the Police Department submits that the petitioner was now 54 years of age which fact is not denied by the petitioner. It is .not explained on record as to why the petitioner kept silent for almost two decades after crossing the said age of 33 years before approaching the Service Tribunal for the relief in question. It was found by the Service Tribunal from the report submitted by the concerned Superintendent that he had publicized the fact of holding of the test in question and had even informed all the Borrowing Authorities and Officers so that the matter in question could be brought to the notice of all the eligible constables. The fact that two other constables had been brought on B-I list without requisite test is hardly a justification for any Court of law to direct a similar thing in the case of the petitioner. In the first place we are not seized of the circumstances in which the said two constable had been brought on B-I list and if the same had been done in violation of the law then it would be hardly a precedent for a Court of law to follow.
4. A petition is competent before this Court only if a substantial question of law for public importance is disclosed in terms of Article 212(3) of the Constitution. No such question could be shown to exist in this matter. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused. M.H./B-73/S Petition dismissed.