1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MAQBOOL AHMED and another Versus MILITARY ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL and 2 others
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, JJ |
| Parties | MAQBOOL AHMED and another Versus MILITARY ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL and 2 others |
| Primary Law | (b) Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), (a) Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, (c) Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1973 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), (a) Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, (c) Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1973 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MAQBOOL AHMED and another Versus MILITARY ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ahmad Raza Khan Qasuri, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in both petitions)
- Ch. Ijaz Ahmed, Dy. Attorney-General and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in both petitions).
- Date of hearing: 11th February, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 18-3-1991 and 19-5-1991 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No. 113-R/90 and Appeal No. 56-R./90 respectively)
R.3(1)
Petitioners' appointment as probationer accountants
Petitioners' failure to pass Accounts Promotion Examination culminated into giving them option either for accepting post of senior auditor or to be discharged from service
Petitioners' plea that they having been selected by Public Service Commission, were not liable to have passed any departmental examination-- Rules for appointment as probationers were also challenged
Advertisement for the post was made laying down terms and conditions
Petitioners fully knowing such terms and conditions had submitted applications
Petitioners, after qualifying tests were offered job; in letter of appointment it was specifically stated that they had to clear departmental promotion examination
Petitioners, thus, could not now turn somersault and state that the Rules were not applicable to them
Petitioners were disentitled to any relief.
S. 6(3)
Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules (1973), R.3(2)
Departmental examination
Validity of rules for appointment of probationer accountants
Departmental examination was a requisite qualification under the Rules and such requirement was laid down in S. 6(3), Civil Servants Act, 1973
Civil Servants (Appointment. Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 having been framed by competent Authority in accordance with provisions of Civil Servants Act, 1973, were valid and legal.
R. 11
Permission to appear in C.S.S. examination
Denial of
Provision of R. 11, Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 postulates that a probationer would not be allowed to apply for any appointment outside the department during period of probation and also until he puts in five-years service after passing the departmental examination-- Petitioners having accepted such condition at the time of appointment, there was no violation of any rules by not permitting petitioner to appear in C.S.S. examination. Ghulam Sarwar v. Pakistan PLD 1962 S.C. 142 ref.
Judgment & Decree
R.3(1)
Petitioners' appointment as probationer accountants
Petitioners' failure to pass Accounts Promotion Examination culminated into giving them option either for accepting post of senior auditor or to be discharged from service
Petitioners' plea that they having been selected by Public Service Commission, were not liable to have passed any departmental examination-- Rules for appointment as probationers were also challenged
Advertisement for the post was made laying down terms and conditions
Petitioners fully knowing such terms and conditions had submitted applications
Petitioners, after qualifying tests were offered job; in letter of appointment it was specifically stated that they had to clear departmental promotion examination
Petitioners, thus, could not now turn somersault and state that the Rules were not applicable to them
Petitioners were disentitled to any relief. (b) Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)
S. 6(3)
Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules (1973), R.3(2)
Departmental examination
Validity of rules for appointment of probationer accountants
Departmental examination was a requisite qualification under the Rules and such requirement was laid down in S. 6(3), Civil Servants Act, 1973
Civil Servants (Appointment. Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 having been framed by competent Authority in accordance with provisions of Civil Servants Act, 1973, were valid and legal. (c) Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1973
R. 11
Permission to appear in C.S.S. examination
Denial of
Provision of R. 11, Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 postulates that a probationer would not be allowed to apply for any appointment outside the department during period of probation and also until he puts in five-years service after passing the departmental examination-- Petitioners having accepted such condition at the time of appointment, there was no violation of any rules by not permitting petitioner to appear in C.S.S. examination. Ghulam Sarwar v. Pakistan PLD 1962 S.C. 142 ref. Ahmad Raza Khan Qasuri, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in both petitions) Ch. Ijaz Ahmed, Dy. Attorney-General and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in both petitions). Date of hearing: 11th February, 1992.