1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
PROS. ANIS AHMAD SHEIKH Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
| Citation | 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | M. Saleem Chaudhry, Chairman and Khalid Faruq, Member |
| Parties | PROS. ANIS AHMAD SHEIKH Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT |
| Primary Law | Civil service‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: M. Saleem Chaudhry, Chairman and Khalid Faruq, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (PROS. ANIS AHMAD SHEIKH Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.
- A. G. Humayun, Government Pleader for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑Promotion‑‑Selection by Departmental Board‑Not acted upon‑ Can be re‑considered‑Contention that promotion already approved by Selection Board could not be reconsidered‑Rejected- Government, held, could rescind or withdraw an order unless actually acted upon.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal No. 285/639 of 1975, decided on 28th February, 1979. ‑‑Promotion‑‑Selection by Departmental Board‑Not acted upon‑ Can be re‑considered‑Contention that promotion already approved by Selection Board could not be reconsidered‑Rejected- Government, held, could rescind or withdraw an order unless actually acted upon. Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant. A. G. Humayun, Government Pleader for Respondent. M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑This order may be read as part of our order dated 1st August, 1977. We are informed that the appellant has been reconsidered by the Departmental Selection Board and it has been concluded that the appellant is not a fit person to be promoted. The learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the reconsideration was not necessary as the appellant already stood approv ed for promotion to the post of Professor and, therefore, the same election ha id good even today. The law is well established that unless an order is actually acted upon and implemented the Government retained power to rescind or withdraw the same. The counsel for the appellant has not been able to show as anything to the contrary. We are, therefore, of the view that Government had the powers to withdraw/rescind the previous order. As regards the latest determination by the Selection Board rejecting the appellant for promotion, in view of proviso (b) to section 4 (1) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, according to which no appeal lies against determination of the departmental authority as to the fitness of a civil servant to be promoted to a post or grade, we do not have the jurisdiction to scrutinize the merits of the same. We have, therefore, no doubt in our mind that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to examine the merits of the finding of the Selection Board. The appeal has no force and is, accordingly, rejected. Appeal rejected.