1991 PLP 1129 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal‑‑‑What is barred from the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal is the question of fitness of a civil servant for promotion and not the question of eligibility to promotion‑‑‑Civil Court has no jurisdiction to determine eligibility of civil servant for promotion as the matter related to terms and conditions of service. What is barred from the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is the question of fitness of a civil servant for promotion. The determination of his eligibility is a question on which jurisdiction of the Tribunal has not been barred. The question of eligibility relates primarily to the terms and conditions of service and their applicability to the civil servant concerned. Fitness introduces an element of subjective valuation on the basis of objective criteria where substitution for an opinion of the competent authority is not possible by that of a Tribunal or a Court. It is in this background that the question of fitness or suitability for promotion has always been considered to be exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority not shared by the Court or Tribunal exercising supervisory jurisdiction in respect of eligibility and qualification. On the question of eligibility and qualification no such bar exists either on express words of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act or even by implication. In the present case the petitioner had approached the civil Court for determination of his eligibility and also for being declared as the only one eligible to be promoted. Such an exercise could not be undertaken by the civil Court with the limited number of parties arrayed before it nor could it have jurisdiction as the matter related to the terms and conditions of the service. Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th March, 1991. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the grievance which he had taken to the civil Court, namely eligibility for promotion, was not a matter in terms of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act for which he could have had recourse to the Service Tribunal. On that reasoning it is urged that the civil Court had the jurisdiction, that abatement had not taken place and that the Governor could be guided by it. Even otherwise, according to the learned counsel, the background of the case and the equities arising out of it demanded that the appropriate relief as was granted by the Governor should have been granted to him. He wants, therefore, a review of the judgment to that extent.

2. What is barred from the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is the question of fitness of a civil servant for promotion. The determination of his eligibility is a question on which jurisdiction of the Tribunal has not been barred. The question of eligibility relates primarily to the terms and conditions of service and their applicability to the civil servant concerned. Fitness introduces an element of subjective evaluation on the basis of objective criteria where substitution for an opinion of the competent authority is not possible by that of a Tribunal or a Court. It is in this background that the question of fitness or suitability for promotion has always been considered to be exclusively within the jurisdiction of a the competent authority not shared by the Court or Tribunal exercising supervisory jurisdiction in respect of eligibility and qualification. On the question of eligibility and qualification no such bar exists either on express words of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act or even by implication. The petitioner had approached the civil Court for determination of his eligibility and also for being I declared as the only one eligible to be promoted. Such an exercise could riot be undertaken by the civil Court with the limited number of parties arrayed before it nor could it have jurisdiction as the matter related to the terms and conditions of~ the service.

3. No case is, therefore, made out with regard to review of the judgment and the review petition is dismissed. M.B.A./A‑841/S. Petition dismissed.