1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Sheikh NASEER‑UD‑DIN Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKS DEPARTMENT, LAHORE AND 24 OTHERS
| Citation | 1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zafarullah, J |
| Parties | Sheikh NASEER‑UD‑DIN Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKS DEPARTMENT, LAHORE AND 24 OTHERS |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Zafarullah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Sheikh NASEER‑UD‑DIN Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKS DEPARTMENT, LAHORE AND 24 OTHERS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh.. Munir Ahmad for Petitioner.
- Altaf Muhammad Khan for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 29th May, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)‑ ‑‑‑‑‑S.8‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑Promotion of Civil servant‑Requirements ‑ Promotion case once considered by Public Service Commission and then by Departmental Promotion Committee‑On both occasions such employee was found not suit able for promotion‑Fitness of civil servant for promotion was to be determined by competent authority‑Competent authority having not found civil servant to be fit for promotion‑High Court, held, would not interfere in matter or even substitute its own opinion for opinion of competent authority. Aish Muhammad and 68 others v. Pakistan and 75 others 1985. SCMR774.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner has been serving as Sub‑Engineer in the Communications and Works Department, Government of the Punjab and has retired on 15th Jape, 1980 during the pendency of the present writ petition. He felt aggrieved of the rejection of his case for promotion as S.D.O, and challeng ed the orders in writ. The original record produced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Province of the Punjab shows that the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion once in 1973 by the Punjab Public Service Commission and then on 20th July,1977 by the Departmental Promotion Committee and on both the occasions he was not found suitable for promotion. The fitness of a civil servant for promotion is to be determined by the competent authority. In the present case the com petent authority has not found the petitioner to be fit for promotion. This Court will not interfere in the matter or even substitute its own opinion of the competent authority. In this regard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent also relies on the case of Aish Muhammad and 68 others v. Pakistan and 75 others (1985 S C M R 774). In view of the above considerations, I find no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs. A. A. Petition dismissed.