Find a Lawyer

PANAH ALI JUMANI versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Section 8 and 9 Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Appeal of Section 4 Promotion of Option to Service Tribunal Respondents, Suppressing Appellant from BS 17 to BS 18, Despite Appellant's Junior And then BS-18 was promoted to BS. In the order of merit appellant as superintendent engineer in BS 19, 19 received two "very good" and seven "good" ACs and was never rated "average" or "below average" in BS 19. The appellant in the qualifying service had crossed the threshold of qualification in the relevant grade required for the development of the next higher grade, which resulted in the 71 characteristic of the appellant also reflecting the positive trend and did not identify any negative factor. The appellant was never subjected to any. According to the record, 56% of the disciplinary proceedings and NIPA were also achieved, while the respondents only got 54% factor which had the balance in favor of their junior. (Respondent) The applicant had a valid score of 72 against the 71 score, which, according to the Central Selection Board, was sufficient to understand the factor of seniority found in favor of appellant's endorsement, which was not sufficient consideration. The supremacy of the appellant seniority was a factor that was included in all public servants and was an indispensable right to be promoted, unless there was a concrete negative element against it. Who may have been militant against it. Appellant seniority's right was an unavoidable factor, but it certainly meant consistently looking for good performance. immigration advocate from Kakul lawyer