Find a Lawyer

Case No. 504/1654 of 1981, decided on 7th February, 1983.

‑‑ S. 4 (1) (b)‑Promotion‑Official duly considered for promotion but found not fit‑‑Decision of Promotion Committee involving supersession ‑Tribunal, in circumstances, held, had no jurisdic tion and could not give any direction to competent authority.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.

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

Qamar‑uz‑Zaman has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, as respondent.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order, dated 29th September, 1976, in so far as the appellant has been ignored for promotion to List G and promotion to the rank of D. S. P. be set aside and‑the respondent be directed to consider the appellant for promo tion to select List G, from the date his juniors were promoted.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Inspector Police at Multan, involved in a murder case and was sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge, Multan. However, he filed appeal before the Lahore High Court which remained pending for a considerable long time and ultimately the appellant was acquitted. The appellant was restored to his office after the acquittal by the High Court. Meanwhile the appellant was in jail, a number of persons junior to him were promo ted after due consideration by the Promotion Committee. The appellant after his re‑instatement in the office, made a representation to the next higher authorities that his case may be considered for promotion to List G as well as raise him as D. S. P. 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 Department and have perused the record of this case with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the promo tion of the appellant was withheld to List G as well as to the rank of D. S. P. simply on account of his being involved in a murder case where as a number of persons junior to him, were promoted during the said period. According to the learned counsel once he has been acquitted from the charge of murder, he is fully entitled to claim his right of being considered for promotion from the date his juniors were promoted.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that he has no dispute with the contention so raised by the appellant in view of the S. & G. A. I. Department letter and instructions of the Govern ment from time to time in this behalf, but has controverted the claim of the appellant on the ground that he was considered in 1981, after he was reinstated in service by the Promotion Committee headed by Mr. Muhammad Hayatullah Khan Sumbal, Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Home Department, Lahore, and he was not cleared for promo tion. In this manner it has been submitted that the case of the appellant was considered and it was within the prerogative of the said Committee either to promote him or to supersede him.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the minutes of the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee held in 1981 under the Chairmanship of Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Home Department, Lahore, placed as R.‑I, by the respondent, clearly show that the case of the appellant was consi dered alongwith 42 others but he was not cleared for promotion. This to our mind, would be an order of supersession by the said Committed after considering the case of the appellant alongwith his other colleagues.

8. In view of the established fact on the record we have no hesita tion to hold that no direction can be given by this Tribunal to the respon dent for promotion of the appellant as in the matter of promotion, the jurisdiction of this Tribunal is barred by section 4 (i) (b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act.

9. The result is we dismiss the appeal as being without any merits. However, there will be no order as to costs. To be communicated to the parties.

A. E. 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.