1983 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑S. 4; proviso (b) (i)‑Promotion‑ Matter not within jurisdiction 'of Service Tribunal‑No other adequate remedy available ‑ High Court exercising discretionary ‑ writ jurisdiction ‑ Petitioner not promoted on account of adverse remarks in A. C. R. not communicated sated‑Un-communicated remarks to be ignored understanding instructions of Government‑Directions issued by High Court fore- reconsidering petitioner for promotion in due course by ignoring adverse remarks earlier relied upon‑Writ jurisdiction‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 and Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art.

9. Atiqur Rehman Qaxi assisted by Min Muhammad Aahfag for Petitioner. S. Ibne Ali, Addl. A.‑G. for Respondents. Date of hearing : 25th May, 1982. By this constitutional petition Ikramullah Khan, Sub‑Engineer, Hydro logy Sub‑Division, Irrigation Department, Peshawar has called in question the order of respondent No. 1 whereby the petitioner was considered not suitable for promotion on account of his adverse record of service. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was never communicated the adverse remarks as required by para. 4 (reproduced below) of letter No. S. (R) 1487/4‑1/69‑SOXIII, dated 12th July, 1969 which letter also figures at page 56 of the booklet issued by the Government of N.‑W.F.P. titled "Instruc tions about Confidential Reports'.‑ "Immediate steps should be taken to communicate the adverse remarks for the year 1968, and only those adverse remarks should in future be taken into consideration which have been communicated and a decision taken on the representation. This should be done in accord ance with the prescribed time limits. All uncommunicated remarks from 1968, shall have to be ignored: But the defaulting authorities shall themselves be liable to disciplinary action, if it will be found that the adverse remarks have not been communicated."

2. In the written statement filed by the respondents apart from the objection that this Court has no jurisdiction in the matter, it is mentioned in para. 2 (c) and (d) that the petitioner was considered not suitable for promotion on account of his unsatisfactoy record for the year 1979. The respondents have not rebutted the contention of the petitioner that he was not communicated the adverse remarks. As regards jurisdiction it is abundantly clear from the North‑West Frontier Province Service Tribunals Act, 1974 that the Tribunal constituted under it lacks jurisdiction toy entertain appeals under proviso (b) (i) of section 4 regarding fitness of civil servant for promotion. As such no other adequate remedy being available to the petitioner this Court has the jurisdiction in the matter.

3. In the light of what bas been referred to hereinbefore and in view of the clear instructions of the Government on the subject, we direct the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion in due course by ignoring the uncommunicated adverse entries for the year 1979, earlier relied upon. Parties to bear their own costs.