2004 PLP 1215 (SCMR)
Maj. (Retd.) TIPU SULTAN KHAN and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus SHAHZAD HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1215 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Syed Deedar Hussain Shah, Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | Maj. (Retd.) TIPU SULTAN KHAN and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus SHAHZAD HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1215 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1215 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Syed Deedar Hussain Shah, Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1215 (SCMR) (Maj. (Retd.) TIPU SULTAN KHAN and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus SHAHZAD HUSSAIN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with M.S. Khattak, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants (in Civil Appeal No. 1464 of 1999).
- Nasir Saeed Sheikh Standing Counsel with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants (in Civil Appeal No. 1465 of 1999).
- Ali Hassan Gillani, Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Zaidi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 23rd April, 2004.
- 5. Appellant present in person in Civil Appeal No.1466 of 1999, placed submissions by adopting the arguments of Hafiz S.A. Rehman, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court as well as Mr. Nasir Saeed Shaikh, learned Standing Counsel and further submitted that the impugned judgment is the result of misreading and non‑reading, of the material, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice.
- 6. Mr. Ali Hassan Gillani, learned counsel for respondent‑Shahzad Hussain supported the impugned judgment and vehemently controverted the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the appellant in person and further submitted that the impugned judgment is entirely in consonance with the proper appreciation of interpretation of the rule.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal, from judgment, dated 24‑2‑1999, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No.296(P) of 1998). ‑‑‑‑S. 3(2)‑‑‑Notification S.R.O. 305(I)/85, dated 31‑3‑1985, Ministry of Defence‑‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973.), Art.212(3)‑‑‑Direct induction‑‑‑Quota of Army Officers‑‑‑Civil servant being aggrieved of the induction of Army Officer in the service of Chief Administrator of Surveyor General of Pakistan, preferred appeal before Service Tribunal and the same was allowed by the Tribunal‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Service Tribunal had rightly observed in the judgment that in present composition of officers in Grade‑19‑‑‑20% quota had not been observed by the Survey of Pakistan in defiance of the directive of the parent Ministry i.e. Ministry of Defence‑‑‑Service Tribunal rightly remanded the case and directed Surveyor General to reduce the number of Army Officers holding the post of Director to one only and appoint civilian officers in the vacancies according to their selection procedure and the Recruitment Rules for civilians‑‑‑Judgment passed by Service Tribunal was well‑reasoned which had taken into consideration the entire available material and had properly interpreted the rule and Office Memorandum of Establishment Division and thus the judgment was not open to exception‑‑‑Question of general public importance as contemplated under Art.212(3) of the Constitution was not made out‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Appellant in person (in Civil Appeal No. 1466 of 1999).
Judgment & Decree
6. Mr. Ali Hassan Gillani, learned counsel for respondent‑Shahzad Hussain supported the impugned judgment and vehemently controverted the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the appellant in person and further submitted that the impugned judgment is entirely in consonance with the proper appreciation of interpretation of the rule.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the available material. It would be pertinent to refer here statutory Notification S.R.O. issued by Ministry of Defence, dated 31‑31985, which reads as under:‑ "S.R.O. 305(I)/85.‑‑‑ In pursuance of sub‑rule (2) of rule 3 of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, the following methods, qualifications and other conditions are laid down for appointment to the under mentioned posts in BPS‑16 to 19 in the Department of Survey of Pakistan under the Ministry of Defence (Defence Division):‑‑ (1) Director (BPS 19). (1) Name and Pay Method of appointment Scale Director (BPS‑19) (i) 80% of the total posts by promotion from the Civilian Officers Failing promotion by initial appointment; and failing that by transfer in case of all civil posts. (ii) 20% reserved for Army Officers of the Corps of Engineers." The question is very simple that 20% quota of the posts in Pay scale‑19 was reserved for Army Officers of the Corps of Engineers. According to the rule referred to hereinabove and that the reference of learned Standing Counsel for terms and conditions of Army Officers transferred to the Survey of Pakistan will be applicable after induction of the Officers in the Survey of Pakistan and furthermore the rule applicable after confirmation as pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel also be taken into consideration after proper induction in the service of Survey of Pakistan, whereas letter was issued on 5‑4‑1999 by the Ministry of Defence, after the announcement of the judgment by the Tribunal i.e. 24‑2‑1999. Therefore, this letter at all has no bearing to the present appeals. The Tribunal rightly interpreted the rule mentioned hereinabove and the Office Memorandum. It would be pertinent to refer here the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:‑‑ "
5. It is obvious from the present composition of officers in Grade -19 that 20 % quota has not been observed by the Survey of Pakistan in defiance of the directive of the parent Ministry i.e. Ministry of Defence. The Surveyor General is, therefore, directed to reduce the number of Army Officers holding the posy of Director to one only and appoint Civilian Officers in the vacancies according to their selection procedure and the recruitment Rules for civilians. A compliance report be sent to this Tribunal within a month. The case is, therefore, remanded to the respondent‑department with no order as to costs."
8. In our considered view, the impugned judgment is well reasoned, which has taken into consideration the entire available material. and has properly interpreted the rule and the O.M. of the Establishment Division and the judgment is not open to exception. Moreover, question of general public importance as contemplated under Article 212(3) of the Constitution is not made out.
9. For the facts, circumstances and reasons stated hereinabove, these appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. M.H./T‑3/S Petition dismissed.