Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 62 of 1984, decided on 24th January, 1984.

(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 23‑11‑1983 in Writ Petition No. 31.921511983).

‑‑‑ S. 21‑Promotion‑Right of representation ‑ provided where no right of appeal or review existed‑Representation not agitating matter of suitability, as fact that no selection as required under Rules was at all made inasmuch as Committee as a body did not interview candidates and one of candidates was not at all considered by com mittee for promotion‑Held, in face of such omission it could not be said that candidate had been found unsuitable in circumstances. [Civil services].

‑‑‑‑ Ss. 20 & 21‑Promotion ‑ Candidate totally ignored from selection though entitled to be considered alongwith others‑Another candidate also ignored by Selection Committee being over‑impressed by his weak eye‑sight‑Such defects in selection, held, entitled candidates to have their matter reconsidered‑Remand order a proper method. [Civil services].

Khwaja Tariq Rahim, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 24th January, 1984.

The petitioners whose selection as a qanoongo candidate was set aside by the Commissioner Lahore Division, seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 23‑11‑1983 whereby a constitutional petition filed by them challenging the Commissioner's order was dismissed in limine.

The petitioners like the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are the Patwaris of district Lahore. The Departmental Selection Committee examined the suitability of the Patwaris for bringing their names on the selection list of qanoongos for their eventual promotion to that post. It approved, and the Deputy Commission Lim who was the competent officer, accepted the recommendation of the frames of the petitioners. The two respondents represented against it to the Commissioner on various grounds. The Commissioner by his order dated 4‑6‑1983 found that due consideration was not given to the eligibility of the two respondents for promotion. The matter was remanded to the District Selection Committee for reconsidering the matter afresh.

The petitioners challenged the order of the Commissioner on the ground that the Commissioner had no authority to interfere in the selection, that the respondents had no right to be selected and that an appeal was not competent at all. The High Court held that the "Commissioner does not seem to have commuted any illegality in remanding the matter for recon sideration". The petitioners eligibility would be reconsidered.

The learned counsel for the petitioners ' has reiterated before us all the grounds raised in the High Court and also that the petitioners were not afforded an hearing at all. In addition, reliance has been placed on the decision in Ghulam Dastgir and others v. Commissioner Lahore Division (P L D 1973 Lah. 220).

So far as the judgment of the Lahore High Court in Ghulam Dastgir's case is concerned, it is not at all relevant because section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act of 1974 which was enacted afterwards does provide a right of representation where no right of appeal or review exists. In the representation it was not so much the matter of suitability which was agitated as the fact that no selection as required under the Rules was at all made inasmuch as the Committee as a body did not interview the candidates and one of them (Ishaque Masih) was not at all considered by the Committee for promotion. In the face of such an omission it could not be said that be had been found unsuitable.

On merits we find that Ishaque Masih has been totally ignored from the selection though he was entitled to be considered along with others. Similarly it appeared to the Commissioner that the Selection Committee was over‑impressed by the weak eye‑sight of Munshi Khan Patwari in ignoring him from the selection. Such defects in the selection entitled the respondents to have their matter reconsidered. As it is only a remand a wherein the petitioners claim would be considered over again. no injustice has been done to them and they could not protect their selection which has been made ignoring altogether a person entitled to be considered. Violation of rule in the case of Ishaque Masih and violation of principle of, natural justice in the case of the petitioners had to be remedied and remand would appear to be a proper method of doing so.

We do not find any merit in this petition and leave to appeal is refused.

M. Z. M. Case remanded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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