Appeal to Tribunal

Proviso (b) of S. 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973 ('Act of 1973'), bars filing of a service appeal before the Tribunal against an order or a decision of a departmental authority determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed to or hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher post or grade

Said provision deals with a situation that the departmental authority has dealt with the matter of promotions of all the employees eligible for promotion to a post and having found a certain employee to be fit for promotion, promoted him

Remaining civil servants whose case for promotion was considered but found not fit to be promoted, such civil servants' service appeals before the Tribunal would not lie.

Proviso (b) of S. 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973 ('Act of 1973'), bars filing of a service appeal before the Tribunal against an order or a decision of a departmental authority determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed to or hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher post or grade

Said provision deals with a situation that the departmental authority has dealt with the matter of promotions of all the employees eligible for promotion to a post and having found a certain employee to be fit for promotion, promoted him

Remaining civil servants whose case for promotion was considered but found not fit to be promoted, such civil servants' service appeals before the Tribunal would not lie.

Legal plea can be raised, at any stage of the appeal, and it is incumbent upon the Appellate Tribunal to appropriately implement the law.

Service Tribunal had, dilated upon all controversial questions in a comprehensive manner after having scrutinized entire record and relevant laws

Service Tribunal had exercised its discretion judiciously, which was neither arbitrary nor capricious

Conclusion drawn by Service Tribunal was in accordance with law and settled norms of justice

Judgment of Service Tribunal was no suffering from any ambiguity or illegality warranting interference by Supreme Court

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed being devoid o merits.

Law Secretary has no jurisdiction to interfere with functioning of Tribunal.

Petitioner unable to show that- point regarding limitation resulting in dismissal of his appeal by Tribunal was incorrect

No reason found to interfere with order of Tribunal

Leave to appeal refused.

[Civil services].

S. 4, provisos (a) & (b)-Appeal to Tribunal-Right-Exerciseable only after availing of remedy of appeal or review petition to departmental authority prescribed under rules-Review Petition right available under r. 49, K. S. R., Vol. I-Not availed of-Appeal before Tribunal-Not maintainable

Miscellaneous application to Chief Secretary-Cannot be treated as Review petition to Government envisaged under r. 49, K. S. R., Vol. I against an order passed by Government-Such application further made much after 90 days of impugned order, held, could not be treated as Review Petition to fulfil requirement of proviso (a) of S. 4 of Azad Jammu & Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975-Failure to avail of departmental remedy within prescribed period-Effect-Appellant deemed to have foregone losing right of appeal before Service Tribunal-Azad Jammu & Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1975, S. 23(i). & (ii) read with K. S. R., Vol. 1, r. 49.

Presumption exists as to official acts being regularly performed-Departmental file containing a copy of reply sent to petitioner concerning his departmental representation and such communication addressed to petitioner exactly on same address on which order of rejection sent hence no reason why earlier order should not have been received by Petitioner, held, ought to have, after expiry of statutory period of 90 days, filed an appeal within 30 days thereof before Tribunal and not having done so his appeal time barred and no case made out for interference by Supreme Court - Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212.-[Civil services].