2001 PLP 1282 (SCMR)
Mian MUHAMMAD MOHSIN RAZA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Miss RIFAT SHEIKH and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1282 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rashid Aziz Khan, Hamid Ali Mirza |
| Parties | Mian MUHAMMAD MOHSIN RAZA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Miss RIFAT SHEIKH and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 1282 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 1282 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rashid Aziz Khan, Hamid Ali Mirza.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 1282 (SCMR) (Mian MUHAMMAD MOHSIN RAZA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Miss RIFAT SHEIKH and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rehanul Hasan Farooqui, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Suleman Habibullah, Additional A.‑G., Sindh for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th December, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 1‑2‑1999 passed by Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi in Service Appeal No. 13 of 1993). ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Terms and conditions of service‑‑‑Seniority list‑‑‑Adverse remarks in Annual Confidential Report‑‑‑Civil servant was ignored for promotion on account of such remarks and, thereafter, within four months, on the same record, he was promoted‑‑‑Grievance of the civil servant was that he was shown junior to the others just on the basis of the Report‑‑ Contention by the civil servant was that to absence of any material available on record in any shape, 'adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report could not be taken into consideration‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider the contention raised by the civil servant.
Judgment & Decree
RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.‑‑‑Facts leading to the filing of this petition are that petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge on regular basis through Public Service Commission on 18‑12‑1985. Petitioner earned adverse remarks in his A.C.R. for the period 2‑6‑1988 to 10‑9‑1988. He filed a departmental representation whereupon adverse remarks were directed to be treated as "piece of advice", however, in the A.C.R. adverse remarks "below average" and "not yet fit for, promotion" were left to remain. In 1992, petitioner, alongwith his batch mates, was considered for promotion but his name was withdrawn with remarks that on account of patchy record he was not promoted vide notification 21‑6‑1992. Subsequently, by means of another notification dated 26‑10‑1992, petitioner was promoted as Senior Civil Judge. In the meanwhile, seniority list was published on 19‑11‑1992, wherein, petitioner was shown junior to respondents Nos.1 to
8. He filed departmental representation which failed on 2‑5‑1993. Thereafter, he filed an appeal before Service Tribunal which was dismissed on 1‑2‑1999, therefore, the present petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel at length and perused the file. Adverse remarks, in the pen picture, were treated to be advisory in nature yet in the other columns of A.C.R., wherein it was recorded "not yet fit for promotion" were not scored off. We repeatedly asked the learned Law Officer, appearing for the respondent to show any material on the basis of which adverse remarks in para.6 of A.C.R. were recorded. No material was available on the file of the petitioner. Another striking feature is that petitioner was ignored for promotion on account of patchy record on 18‑4‑1992 and, thereafter, within four months, on the same record, he was promoted. We feel, there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of any material available on the record to any shape, adverse remarks in the A.C.R. could not be taken into consideration. We accordingly grant leave to appeal to consider the above point. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑235/S Leave granted.