2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
SAEED MUHAMMAD ZAI Versus The SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, LABOUR DEPARTMENT and 4 others
| Citation | 2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar High Court |
| Bench Members | Nisar Hussain Khan and Qaiser Rashid, JJ |
| Parties | SAEED MUHAMMAD ZAI Versus The SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, LABOUR DEPARTMENT and 4 others |
| Primary Law | (a) Civil service, (c) Civil service, (b) Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Civil service, (c) Civil service, (b) Civil service, (e) Discretion, (d) Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar High Court bench comprising: Nisar Hussain Khan and Qaiser Rashid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (SAEED MUHAMMAD ZAI Versus The SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, LABOUR DEPARTMENT and 4 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Asif Yousafzai for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Akhtar Hussain for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Employee-petitioner being Social Security Officer
Supersession of employee-petitioner due to average grading/ performance
Scope
Fitness
Contention of employee-petitioner was that he was eligible for promotion but he had not been promoted
Respondent had been promoted to the post of Deputy Director (Administration) by superseding the petitioner
Rule and method for promotion for the said post was seniority-cum-fitness from amongst the Social Security Officers having at least five years service
Both the petitioner and respondent were performing their duties as Social Security Officers having five years service at their credit
Employee-petitioner was senior to respondent
Average grading could not be considered as adverse report unless so treated and conveyed to the civil servant
Fitness could not be determined on mathematical formula
Fitness was though an important element in consideration of promotion but it would precede with seniority
Senior officer should be considered for promotion on priority basis
Nothing was on record as to why junior officer was promoted by superseding the petitioner
Competent authority should give reasons while superseding the employee
Impugned action of the department was not based on sound principles of reasonableness, Openness, justice and fair play which was struck down by High Court
Mater was remitted to the Departmental Selection Board to re-consider the promotion case of the parties afresh and decide the same in accordance with law and rules with speaking order giving reasons
Department was directed to decide the matter within a period of two months
Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly. Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation through D.G.H.Q. Islamabad and another v. Nasiruddin 1997 SCMR 1303 and Province of the Punjab through Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore and another v. Sardar Noor Illahi Khan Leghari and another 1992 SCMR 1427 rel.
Average grading could not be considered as adverse report unless so treated and conveyed to the civil servant.
Fitness
Though fitness was an important element in consideration of promotion but it would precede with seniority.
Scope
Supersession would tantamount to penalty.
Exercise of
Principle
Discretion should be exercised honestly, fairly, judicially and in accordance with law and rules.