1986 PLP 1583 (SCMR)
RAHEEM BUX SOOMRO — Petitioner Versus THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1583 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | RAHEEM BUX SOOMRO — Petitioner Versus THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1583 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1583 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1583 (SCMR) (RAHEEM BUX SOOMRO — Petitioner Versus THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd July, 1986.
- Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner could not meet the point made in the impugned order. His only contention was that the petitioner could have again appeared for passing the examination. This was for the departmental authority to permit him or withhold permission to do so. Moreover, this point does not seem to have been raised before the Tribunal nor it raises any question of law of public importance, We, therefore, find no justification for interference and dismiss this petition.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 30-9-1984 in Appeal No. 106 of 1983) .
Art. 212(3)--Federal Service Tribunal Act (LXX of 1973), S.4- Termination of Service after expiry of probation--Petitioner appointed as Inspector Income-tax with one of necessary conditions that he would pass departmental examination--Probationary period of petitioner expiring but he, despite more than six years of service, could not pass departmental examination or whereupon his services were terminated- Fact that petitioner's probation was not extended within time would not absolve him from appearing in departmental examination--When order of termination was passed he in terms of his appointment order was serving until further orders and his services could, therefore, be terminated at any time--Question that petitioner could have again appeared for departmental examination or whether to permit him to do so or not was for department to decide--Leave refused.
Art. 212(3)--Point not raised before tribunal nor such point raising any question of law of public importance--No justification existing for interference--Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 30th September, 1984, of the Central Service Tribunal; whereby the petitioner's service appeal, was dismissed. In 1972, the petitioner was serving in the Income‑tax Department as U.D.C. when he was appointed through direct selection as Inspector on an advertised post on 6‑5‑1972. Despite more than six years of service, he could not pass departmental examination and failed in it whereupon his service was terminated. He made departmental representation which fructified to some extent, namely, that he was again appointed as U . D . C . Not having been satisfied he filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal which having been dismissed he has sought leave to appeal. The solitary contention raised before the Tribunal, was that the, probationary period having passed, the petitioner's service as Inspector could not be terminated due to failure in the departmental examination. It is not denied that passing of the departmental examination was one of the conditions of service. Moreover, the probationary period which was initially for two years could be extended either before or after its expiry failing which according to the rules the service was to be treated 'until further orders'. It is also an admitted position that the probationary period was not extended, therefore, the service of the petitioner as an Inspector was 'until further orders. The Tribunal while disposing of the contention raised by the petitioner observed as follows: ‑ "No doubt, his probation was not extended within time, nevertheless, this fact does not absolve him from appearing in the departmental examination. In fact, when the order of termination was passed, he, in terms of his appointment order, was serving until further orders. As such, the appellant's services could be terminated at any time." Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner could not meet the point made in the impugned order. His only contention was that the petitioner could have again appeared for passing the examination. This was for the departmental authority to permit him or withhold permission to do so. Moreover, this point does not seem to have been raised before the Tribunal nor it raises any question of law of public importance, We, therefore, find no justification for interference and dismiss this petition. M.Y.H. Leave refused.