Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 1503 of 1980, decided on 23rd August 1981.

(On appeal from the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 21‑9‑1980 passed in Appeal No. 86/218 of 1977).

---R. 14(7)‑Chairman of Board, powers of‑Chairman of Board Can exercise powers delegated to an authority subordinate to him Managing Director, subordinate to Chairman, having been delegated power to decide question of promotion of Officers, Chairman of Board, held, could also decide such question‑[Delegation of powers].

‑‑ R. 14(7)‑Chairman of Board‑Exercise of powers by‑Contention that power of Chairman could be available only by way of appeal against order passed by Managing Director and Managing Director having not passed any order no appeal could lie to Chairman‑Held Conduct of Managing Director having amply demonstrated that he did not consider petitioner fit for promotion. Chairman's powers, even if considered to be dependent only on appeal from order of Managing Director, representation made by petitioner before Chairman quite in nature of appeal against refusal of Managing Director to promote him.

---Art. 212(3)‑Point neither taken in appeals, previously filed nor any evidence led on point‑Not allowed to be urged before Supreme Court.

Zia Mahmood Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court with Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nazir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with Masud Akhtar, Advocate on Record for Respondent No. 3.

Date of hearing : 23rd August, 1981.

.‑This is a petition filed by the Punjab Road Transport Board and its Managing Director for leave to appeal‑ under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, dated 21‑9‑1980, whereby the Tribunal set aside the Board's order dated 31‑1‑1977 and upheld that of the Chairman of the Board dated 12‑1‑1977 promoting respondent Ch. Rafiq Ahmad, Shad to the post of Controller of Stores in N. P. S. 18.

2. Ch. Rafiq Ahmad Shad had originally been a Government servant in the Punjab Transport Department but had later been transferred to the Punjab Road Transport Corporation (now Punjab Road Transport Board) where he has been working since. On 18‑11‑1968, he was promoted to be a Stores Officer, in 1971, when one Maqbool Ahmad Khan was promoted to the rank of District Manager in N. P. S. 18, Ch. Rafiq Ahmad Shad represented on the basis of his being senior but his representation was rejected on the ground that he belonged to the Stores Cadre. In the year 19715, three posts of Controller of Stores were created in N. P. S. 18 and although his case was recommended, he was not given the promotion by the Managing Director. He then made representations to the Chairman who accepted the same by his order dated 12‑1‑1977 and promoted him to the post of Cont roller of Stores. But after the departure of the Chairman from the Board a few days later, the matter was reconsidered by the Board on 31‑1‑1977 who by a resolution of that date annulled the Chairman's order on the ground that the latter had no power in the matter, Ch. Rafiq Ahmad Shad filed two appeals ; one before the Punjab Service Tribunal and the other before the Government of the Punjab. The latter was accepted on 19‑9‑1979 whereby the order of the Chairman dated 12‑1‑1977 was restored. In view of this order the appeal before the Tribunal (No. 86/218 of 1977) was disposed of on 1‑10‑1979 as having become infructuous. As, however, the Board did not implement the appellate decision of the Government of the Punjab, Ch, Aafiq Ahmad Shad again moved the Tribunal by an application.

3. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the Board that the Secretary of the Provincial Transport Department was not empowered to entertain an appeal and accordingly held that the orders passed by him had no legal effect. The Tribunal, however, rejected the other objection taken up by the Board that the Chairman had no jurisdiction to have passed his order dated 12‑1‑1977 either on the representation of Ch. Rafiq Ahmad Shad which he had no power to entertain or in an appeal preferred by him without there being an order passed by the Managing Director.

4. To our mind, clause (7) of rule 14 of the Punjab Road Transport Board Rules, 1972, referred to by the Tribunal, clinches the matter as far as the competence of the Chairman of the Board is concerned. By this clause (7) the Chairman can exercise the powers delegated to an authority subordinate to him. It is not the Board's case that Managing Director who was an authority subordinate to the Chairman, had not been delegated the powers to decide the question of promotion of officers in the Stores Depart ment to N. P. S. 18. If the Managing Director could exercise such power, so could the Chairman too. Learned counsel still contends that the power of the Chairman could be available only by way of appeal against order, if any, passed by the Managing Director, and that as the Managing Director had not passed any order before 12‑1‑1977, no appeal could lie to the Chairman. He pointed out that Munir Jeelani (respondent No. 4) had been promoted as late as 1‑6‑1977 and until then Ch. Rafiq Ahmad Shad had no cause to move the Chairman. The Tribunal had rejected this contention by observing, "It is evident that the appellant approached the Chairman only when his claim to promotion in N. P. S. 18 was refused by the Managing Director". Considering the facts of the case, we find the observation unexceptionable. The conduct of the Managing Director had amply demonstrated that he had not considered Ch. Rafiq Ahmad Shad fit for the promotion. Therefore, even if the Chairman's power could be said to be dependent only on appeal from an order of the Managing Director, the representation made by Ch. Rafiq Ahmad Shad before the Chairman was in the nature of such appeal against the refusal of the Managing Director to promote him.

5. It was lastly urged that Ch. Rafiq Ahmad Shad, being a Government servant on deputation to the Board, could not seek promotion in the Board. But we find that no such point had been taken in the appeal either before the Government or the Tribunal nor had any evidence been led to show that the terms of his deputation barred his promotion by the authorities o the Board.

6. We, therefore, find no substance in this petition which we accordingly dismiss.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.