1998 PLP 1385 (SCMR)
IFTIKHAR AHMAD RANDHAWA and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mian MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 1385 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan and Sh. Ijaz Nisar, JJ |
| Parties | IFTIKHAR AHMAD RANDHAWA and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mian MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 1385 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 1385 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan and Sh. Ijaz Nisar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 1385 (SCMR) (IFTIKHAR AHMAD RANDHAWA and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mian MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khawaja Muhammad Farooq, Advocate instructed by M.A. Zaidi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.857 of 1997).
- Sh. Altaf Ilahi, Additional Advocate‑General, Punjab for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 1361‑L of 1997).
- Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 3rd March, 1998.
- Khawaja Muhammad Farooq, Advocate instructed by M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.857 of 1997).
- Sh. Altaf Ilahi, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 1361-L of 1997).
- Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1.
- 4. Sh. Altaf Ilahi, learned Additional Advocate-General submitted that the vacancy of Electric Inspector became available on 24-10-1998 and not with effect from 25-3-1989 and on the said date Iftikhar Ahmed Randhawa had become eligible having served as Assistant Electric Inspector for five years, his date of appointment being 25-6-1984, while Mian 'Muhammad Tufail was not eligible as his date of promotion to the post of Assistant Electric Inspector is 12-8-1985 and that in any case Mian Muhammad Tufail respondent No. l was ineligible under Rule 5(4) of the Rules as amended vide notification dated 29-11-1969. This notification amending rule 5(4) of the Rules was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal. It was also pointed out that Mian Muhammad Tufail respondent No. l had invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for seeking the same relief as granted by the Service Tribunal by -filing Constitution Petition No. 1176 of 1995 but said Writ Petition was dismissed in limine. The order so passed by the High Court was also not brought to the notice of the Service Tribunal. It was contended that no relief could legally be granted by the Service Tribunal in the appeal as Iftikhar Ahmed Randhawa who was promoted as Electric Inspector was not impleaded as a respondent in, the A service appeal filed by the respondent No.1,
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore dated 21‑6‑1997 passed in Appeal No. 567 of 1996). ‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Failure to implead necessary party‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contention that no relief could legally be granted by the Service Tribunal as the person who was promoted was not impleaded as respondent in appeal filed by the petitioner who was aggrieved of the promotion of said person.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J.
This order will dispose of two petitions for leave to Appeal No. 857 of 1997 and 1361-L of 1997 as both are directed against one judgment.
2. The appeal fled by Mian Muhammad Tufail respondent No.1 was accepted by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal and he (Muhammad Tufail) was declared to be entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Electric Inspector w.e.f. 25-3-1989 and consequently the departmental authorities were directed to process and place the case of Mian Muhammad Tufail respondent No.1 before the relevant committee within a period of two months.
3. The aforesaid declaration and direction was issued as the Petitioners in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.1361-L of 1997/ the Provincial Government Department in its comments had admitted that a vacancy of Electric Inspector became available on 25-3-1989 and the Tribunal was of the view that under the West Pakistan Electric Inspectors and Assistant Electric Inspectors Recruitment Rules, 1963 he could not have been considered ineligible had he (respondent No.1 herein) been considered for promotion in 1989.
4. Sh. Altaf Ilahi, learned Additional Advocate-General submitted that the vacancy of Electric Inspector became available on 24-10-1998 and not with effect from 25-3-1989 and on the said date Iftikhar Ahmed Randhawa had become eligible having served as Assistant Electric Inspector for five years, his date of appointment being 25-6-1984, while Mian 'Muhammad Tufail was not eligible as his date of promotion to the post of Assistant Electric Inspector is 12-8-1985 and that in any case Mian Muhammad Tufail respondent No. l was ineligible under Rule 5(4) of the Rules as amended vide notification dated 29-11-1969. This notification amending rule 5(4) of the Rules was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal. It was also pointed out that Mian Muhammad Tufail respondent No. l had invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for seeking the same relief as granted by the Service Tribunal by -filing Constitution Petition No. 1176 of 1995 but said Writ Petition was dismissed in limine. The order so passed by the High Court was also not brought to the notice of the Service Tribunal. It was contended that no relief could legally be granted by the Service Tribunal in the appeal as Iftikhar Ahmed Randhawa who was promoted as Electric Inspector was not impleaded as a respondent in, the A service appeal filed by the respondent No.1,
5. The points raised require consideration. Leave to appeal is granted to examine the aforenoted contentions.
6. Order suspending operation of the impugned judgment shall continue. M.B.A./1-15/S - Leave granted.