Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 77‑P of 1983, decided on 22nd November, 1983.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar dated 19‑1‑1983 passed in Writ Petition No. 556 of 1978).
----Art. 185(3)‑contest over promotion of officers of P. C. S. I. R. Promotion, as a general rule, a matter within exclusive discretion and judgment of competent authority and no officer has a vested right there to‑vires of Policy letter laying down criteria for promotion of Research Officers not challenged by petitioner before High Court‑Held, cannot be examined by Supreme Court at stage of leave petition Uncontroverted facts established on record indicating no case of discrimination against petitioner‑Petition for leave to appeal dismiss ed.‑[Civil services].
Abdul Samad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 22nd November, 1983.
Petitioner Abdul Jabbar Khan an respondents No. 4 to 12, who are all employees working in the P. C. S. I. R Laboratories at Peshawar were promoted to Grade 17 on 14‑6‑1976. The promotion given to the said respondents was ordered to take effect from the date of their passing the M. Sc. examination with a benefit of five advance increments with effect from 1‑7‑1975. As similar privilege was not extended to the petitioner and his representation in this behalf was dismissed, instituted a Constitutional Petition in the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar seeking a direction that he be treated on par with the said respondents The learned Judges of the High Court found that the promotion of the respondents was based on the policy decision of the competent authority a contained in the letter No. 512/914/73, dated 16th July, 1973 which stipulate for the grant of Class I status to all Research Chemists and equivalent officer working in the Council but this benefit was expressly restricted to such officers who had passed the M. Sc. examination in 2nd division. As the petitioner had admittedly passed his M. Sc. examination in the 3rd division he was not extended the benefit of the policy decision referred to above He was, however, promoted on his representation by a decision of the Selection Board dated 2‑6‑1976 as a special case, on the basis of his experience any work consisting of publications to his credit. The High Court, therefore reached the conclusion that respondents Nos. 4 to 12 had been promoted on the basis of merit, being holders of 2nd division M. Sc. degrees where the petitioner was promoted on an altogether different basis as stated above and, therefore, no case of discrimination was found established from the facts. On this conclusion the High Court dismissed the Constitution Petition of the petitioner by judgment dated 19‑1‑1983.
2. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court the petition has brought this petition for special leave to appeal. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the policy letter referred to by the learned High Court was not binding on the Selection Board who were required to oust the respect Live qualifications of the officers concerned and in that context the petitioner was better qualified for promotion vis‑a‑vis respondents Nos. 4 to 12. In the submission of the learned counsel the basic qualification provided for appointment to the higher posts was only M. Sc. which the petitioner possessed We find no substance in the contention advanced by the learned counsel. Ii the first place the general rule is that the promotion is a matter lying within the exclusive discretion and judgment of the competent authority and no office, has a vested right therein. Secondly the vires of the policy letter in question was not challenged by the petitioner before the High Court and, therefore, we are not inclined to examine this aspect of the case at this stage. We generally agree with the view taken by the learned Judges of the High Court on uncontroverted facts established on record which indicate no case of discrimination against the petitioner.
3. In view of the aforesaid there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.
S. Q. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer