PLC(CS) 1984

1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

NASRULLAH KHAN Versus SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (HQR), OFFICE OF DIRECTOR,

Jurisdiction / Court
Service Tribunal Punjab
Decided Date
Case No. 45/1519 of 1982, decided on 3rd November, 1982.
Honorable Judges
S. Abdul Jabbar Khan, Chairman, Malik Zawwar Hussain and Abdul Hamid Chaudhry, Members
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Service Tribunal Punjab
Bench Members S. Abdul Jabbar Khan, Chairman, Malik Zawwar Hussain and Abdul Hamid Chaudhry, Members
Parties NASRULLAH KHAN Versus SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (HQR), OFFICE OF DIRECTOR,
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: S. Abdul Jabbar Khan, Chairman, Malik Zawwar Hussain and Abdul Hamid Chaudhry, Members.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (NASRULLAH KHAN Versus SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (HQR), OFFICE OF DIRECTOR,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Masud Ahmdd Riaz for Appellant.
  • Haroonur Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

West Pakistan Irrigation and Power Department Draftsmen's Service Rules, 1962 ‑ ‑‑‑ R. 7(1)‑TerminationPerson only securing from an Engineer ing Institute a certificate and not possessing a diploma, sina qua non for appointment to post of Civil Draftsman‑Person, held, lack requisite qualifications for appointment to such postTermination of services of such person, held, rightly ordered.

Judgment & Decree

Haroonur Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents. S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑Nasrullah Khan, Draftsman, Discharge Division (Canals), Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Superintending Engineer, Head quarter Office of the Director, Floods. I & P Department Punjab, Lahore, Chief Engineer, Floods, Irrigation and Power Department, Punjab, Lahore, and Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order, dated i7th January, 1982 and the resultant termination of the appellant's services be set aside and he may be allowed to continue as Draftsman in the office of Respondent No. 2.

3. Brief facts of the case are that after having Diploma of Civil Draftsman from the Government School of Engineering and Polytechnic Institute, Rasool, West Pakistan in Session 1967‑68, appellant applied for the post of Draftsman in Sargodba Region. He was selected by Selection Promotion Committee No. 2, Sargodha and was appointed as a Draftsman vide letter, dated 21st May, 1980 in NPS‑

11. Prior to this, appellant had been working as Tracer in P & E Cell, Irrigation and Power Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore. When certain posts of Draftsman fell vacant in the office of the Director Floods Punjab, Lahore, the appellant sub mitted his application for his transfer to Lahore through the Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, who enquired from respondent No. 2 whether the appellant was acceptable to him. Respondent No. 2 inform ed the Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department that the appellant was acceptable to them provided sanction of the Finance Department was obtained in relaxation of ban for filling of the posts. When the said approval was received, respondent No. 2 made a reference to the Irriga tion and Power Department but the same was not acceded to and they told the Director Floods that some other proposal be sent instead of one made in favour of the appellant. Later on two vacancies were adver tised by respondent No. 2 for initial appointment in accordance with the West Pakistan Irrigation and Power Department's Service Rules, 1962, and the appellant applied for the said post. However, the case of the appel lant was not approved as it was stated that he lacked necessary qualifica tion. In the meantime Service Rules were changed and in pursuance of the said directive of respondent No. 3, the respondent No. 2 terminated the services of the appellant. He filed departmental appeal but the same was turned down. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. The stand of the appellant's counsel in this case is that when the appellant qualified the departmental examination there used to be one year course at the School of Engineering Rasool However, subsequently after some years, two years course was started. According to the learned counsel as rule 7(1) prescribed the qualifications of the appellant's service, it did not require that a candidate must have done one year or two years qualification and the only qualifications laid down was that the candidate must have passed the examination of Draftsman or Overseer from Government Engineering School, Rasool or hold a Diploma in Engineer ing from a recognized Institute, therefore, the termination of service of the appellant on the plea of lack of qualification, was absolutely unjustified.

6. On the other hand the stand taken by the Government (Respon dent) is that the appellant only secured a certificate from the Govern ment School of Engineering and Polytechnic Institute, Rasool, West Pakistan in the session 1967‑68 and not a Diploma which was a must for the appointment of a Civil Draftsman. According to the learned District Attorney that the certificate secured by the appellant was for the session 1967‑68 and not for session‑ 1966‑67, as intimated by the Board of Technical Education. As the appellant did not possess a Diploma there fore, he was not eligible for the post of Draftsman in NPS‑11, hence his services were rightly terminated.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and find that only crucial point in this case would be whether the appellant was a qualified person for the post of Civil Drafts Man in NPS‑11 or not. There is also another point for consideration in this case that is the age factor of the appellant which also stood in his way.

8. We have given our due consideration to the points involved for the termination of his service and find that the appellant had only secured a certificate from the Government School of Engineering and Polytech nic Institute, Rasool, West Pakistan for the session 1967‑68 and did not possess a Diploma which was a sine qua non for his appointment to the post in dispute. In view of the above, Irrigation and Power Department never expressed its willingness to the transfer of the appellant at any stage and it was advised to the Chief Engineer Floods that the vacancies of the Draftsman should filled in by qualified persons. This being the: state of affair the Government rightly advised the Chief Engineer Floods to take action in accordance with para. 5 of his letter No. FC/81/4580, dated 21st November, 1981 while terminating the services of the appel lant for the post of Draftsmen in NPS‑t

1. With regard to the relaxation of age limit the order of the MLA/Governor of the Punjab, permitting relaxation of age in upper age limit to deserving in‑service candidates is upto 5 years. In this particular case no relaxation was however, accorded, by any authority.

9. In view of these two findings on facts which go against the appel lant, we have no alternative but to dismiss the appeal as being without any merits. There will be no order as to costs. M. Y. M. Appeal dismissed.