1994 PLP 411 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment
| Citation | 1994 PLP 411 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Saleem Akhtar and |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 411 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 411 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Saleem Akhtar and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 411 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd October, 1993.
- 4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that according to Recruitment Rules, 50% of the posts of Deputy Directors were to be filled in, by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment, through Federal Public Service Commission. Learned counsel pointed out that in 1976 three posts of Deputy Directors had fallen vacant, which were filled in only through promotion of the incumbents. The respondent No.3 was promoted in excess of the quota reserved for promotees as such, he could not claim seniority over the petitioner from the date of his promotion.
- 5. The contention raised by the learned counsel for petitioner, has no merit. The perusal of the impugned judgment shows that no doubt the respondent No.3 was promoted on 28‑10‑1976, as Deputy Director on temporary basis but by the retirement of Muhammad Siddiq, Deputy Director on 20‑7‑1980 and by creation of another post of Deputy Director during 1984, the respondent No3's appointment was regularised in 1984, against a post reserved from promotees.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 24‑2‑1993, in A. 237‑R/1992). ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Seniority‑‑‑Dispute of seniority between directly recruited civil servant and a promotee‑‑‑Respondent was promoted on 28‑10‑1976 on temporary basis and his appointment was regularised in 1984, against a post reserved for promotees‑‑‑Petitioner was directly inducted in service in 1987, long after respondent had been appointed on promotion on regular basis in 1984, against a vacancy meant for promotees‑‑‑Petitioner's claim that respondent was not entitled to be placed senior to him was not warranted‑‑‑Service Tribunal's order to that effect being valid, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 23rd October, 1993. MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J‑‑‑Muhammad Ramzan, petitioner herein seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 24‑2‑1993, of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby, his appeal No. 237‑R/1992, was dismissed.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner on his selection by the Federal Public Service Commission was directly appointed on 20‑1‑1987, as Deputy Director (BPS 18) in the Department of National Archives of Pakistan. Mr. Matloob Hussain respondent No.3 was promoted as Deputy Director in the same department on ad hoc/temporary basis with effect from 28‑10‑1976.
3. The petitioner was shown junior to respondent No.3 in the seniority list, and his representation against the same, did not find favour with the department, which led him. to prefer appeal. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed on 24‑2‑1993, by the Federal Service Tribunal. Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that according to Recruitment Rules, 50% of the posts of Deputy Directors were to be filled in, by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment, through Federal Public Service Commission. Learned counsel pointed out that in 1976 three posts of Deputy Directors had fallen vacant, which were filled in only through promotion of the incumbents. The respondent No.3 was promoted in excess of the quota reserved for promotees as such, he could not claim seniority over the petitioner from the date of his promotion.
5. The contention raised by the learned counsel for petitioner, has no merit. The perusal of the impugned judgment shows that no doubt the respondent No.3 was promoted on 28‑10‑1976, as Deputy Director on temporary basis but by the retirement of Muhammad Siddiq, Deputy Director on 20‑7‑1980 and by creation of another post of Deputy Director during 1984, the respondent No3's appointment was regularised in 1984, against a post reserved from promotees.
6. Admittedly the petitioner was inducted in service in 1987, long after the respondent No.3 had been appointed on promotion as Deputy Director on regular basis in 1984, against a vacancy meant for promotees. The petitioner's claim that the respondent No.3 held the post of Deputy Director on temporary basis reserved for direct recruits till he joined service is misconceived.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that this petition has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed. A.A./M‑1860/S Leave refused.