1995 PLP 881 (SCMR)
ZAFAR IQBAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus M.G.O., M.G.O. BRANCH, GHQ RAWALPINDI and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995 PLP 881 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ |
| Parties | ZAFAR IQBAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus M.G.O., M.G.O. BRANCH, GHQ RAWALPINDI and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 881 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 881 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 881 (SCMR) (ZAFAR IQBAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus M.G.O., M.G.O. BRANCH, GHQ RAWALPINDI and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sheikh Riazul Haque, Advocate with Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th December, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal Islamabad dated 4‑5‑1994 passed in Appeal No. 115(R) of 1994). Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 4(1)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Civil Servant‑‑ Denial of promotion by Departmental Promotion Committee on ground that Civil servant was not fit for promotion on account of certain adverse entries in his Annual Confidential Reports‑‑‑Question of promotion being excepted from jurisdiction of Service Tribunal, it rightly declined to go into such question‑‑‑Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction to go into the question of fitness or otherwise of a civil servant on account of bar contained in S. 4(1), Service Tribunals Act, 1973‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 4‑5‑1994 whereby the service appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction in the matter.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner though senior to the private respondents in the petition was denied promotion by the Departmental Authority. After exhausting the departmental remedies the petitioner approached the Service Tribunal with the following prayer:‑ "It is therefore prayed that this Honourable Court may be please to accept the appeal and direct the respondent No. 1 to promote the appellant on the basis of seniority." The learned Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the petitioner holding that in view of the bar contained in section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the question of fitness or otherwise of a civil servant to hold a particular post. It is quite clear from reading of order of the Service Tribunal that the petitioner was denied promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee on the ground that he was not found fit for promotion on account of certain entries in his ACRs. The question of promotion being excepted from the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under section 4(1) of the Service Tribunal the learned Service Tribunal rightly declined co go into the question raised before it. The petition is accordingly dismissed and leave is refused. AA./Z‑185/S Leave refused.