Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 59‑R of 1982, decided on 11th October, 1982.

(Against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore dated 18th January, 1982, passed in Appeal No. 246 of 1981).

---Art. 212 (3) read with Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4 and Punjab Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1975, rr. 7 & 10‑Appeal before Tribunal ‑‑Non‑joinder of necessary parties Appellant‑petitioner, on direction of Tribunal refusing to implead persons likely to be affected in matter of their seniority, in case his appeal succeeded‑Order of Tribunal dismissing appeal as incompetent and non‑maintainable upheld‑Leave to appeal refused.

Ch. Abdul Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents

Date of hearing : 11th October, 1982.

Dr. Iqbal Ahmad Chaudhry, petitioner seeks Leave to Appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, whereby his appeal regarding seniority matter was dismissed.

2. The petitioner was Assistant Professor, Dermatology in Nishtar Medical College, Multan. A vacancy arose for the post of a Professor of Dermatology in the said College on 1‑2‑1979. The petitioner was appointed against the said post and was promoted as a Professor in Grade 20 vide order dated 6‑5‑1980, with effect from the date on which the post bad fallen vacant, i. e. 1‑2‑1979. Dr. Tariq Iqbal Bhutta (respondent No. 5) made a representation to the Chief Secretary whereupon a Committee was constituted by the Health Secretary to reconsider the matter. On its report the Government of the Punjab modified the order dated 6‑5‑1980 to the extent that it was made effective from 29‑4‑1980. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal respondents 2 and 7 applied for being impleaded as parties or the ground that if the petitioner's appeal succeeds their seniority would be affected. The petitioner resisted the. application and filed a reply, but the learned Tribunal found them to be necessary parties and impleaded them as such vide order dated 26‑9‑1981 and also required the petitioner to implead all other Professors who are likely to be affected by the acceptance of the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner, however failed to do so. The learned Tribunal, after considering the matter felt that omission on the part of the petitioner to imple9d other professors likely to be affected by the judgment of the Tribunal was in contravention of rule 7 of the Punjab Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules of 1975, which requires that in memo randum of appeal, the competent authority against whose orders the appeal is preferred and any other party to the dispute shall be shown as respondents. It also observed that under rule 10 it has also been made obligatory on the appellant to implead necessary parties who are likely to be adversely affected in case the appeal succeeds. The learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal as incompetent of non‑maintainable.

Hence this petition.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. He contended that even if he was placed as senior to the 23 other persons who were promoted prior to 29‑4‑1980 but after 1‑2‑1981, this would not affect them adversely inasmuch as he in the event or likelihood of promotion to any higher post he would be in competition only with Professors of Dermatology. This plea is misconceived and we are inclined to agree with the learned Tribunal that the aforementioned professors whom the petitioner has refused to implead should have been impleaded as they would certainly be affected if the petitioner's appeal was to succeed as they would all become junior to him.

In this view of the matter we feel that the petition has no merit and is consequently dismissed.

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.