Find a Lawyer

Case No. 274 of 1982, decided on 20th September, 1982.

‑‑ S. 4 (1) (c)‑Appeal‑Maintainability‑Promotion matter consi dered by Departmental Promotion Committee and case deferred requiring appellant to earn one more annual report‑Fitness or otherwise already considered‑Appeal against decision of competent authority, in circumstances, held, not maintainable.

Ch. Mushtaq Masood for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondent.

Muhammad Anwar Butt, Assis tant, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the decision dated 13th May, 1982 of the Departmental Promotion Committee through which he was not approved for promotion to the post of Superintendent.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the Senior Member (Establishment), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore be directed to consi der him for promotion as Superintendent w. e. f. the date of his juniors were promoted.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is working as an Assistant in the Board of Revenue, Punjab, and when his case matured for promotion, he was ignored for the same. It was observed by the Departmental Promotion Committee that the appellant should earn an other a good report of 1982 for promotion as Superintendent. The appellant was informed accordingly vide order dated 13th May, 1982. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. We have also perused the record produced by the respondent. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has‑been ignored due to a punishment of censure imposed upon him, which could not have been considered as bar for promotion, in view of the instructions contained in S & G A D letter No. SOIV(S&GAD)‑1 75/67(Policy); dated 7th January, 1969. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has argued that the appellant was considered for promotion as Superintendent by the Departmental Promotion Committee on three occasions and lastly it decided that the appel lant should earn another good report for the year 1982. He has also submitted that due to the bar contained under section 4 (i) (c) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, the appeal is not competent.

5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the learned counsel of the parties and have also perused the record produced by the respondent. First of all we will deal with the objection raised by the respondent with regard to the maintainability of the appeal. It is clearly provided under section 4(i) (c) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 that no appeal lies to this 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 promoted to a higher grade. According to law this Tribunal can only direct a civil servant if otherwise eligible be considered for promotion and we cannot go beyond that because we are precluded from giving any decision with regard to the fitness or otherwise of a civil servant to be promoted to a higher post or grade, So we hold that the present appeal is not maintainable. From the perusal of the record we are satisfied that the appellant was consi dered for promotion as Superintendent by the Departmental Promotion Committee so the present appeal is just an exercise in futility. The argu ments of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the policy decision dated 7th January, 1969, does not call for any detailed discussion because it is irrelevant for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal.

6. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the appeal is not maintainable and we dismiss the same as being without any merits. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

Appeal 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.