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. 15 of 1958, decided on 11th April 1958.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 28th November 1957, in Writ Petition No. 69 of 1957.)
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 181 (2)‑---Officiating appointment for specific period‑Incumbent, due to exigencies of service, carrying on for short time after lapse of period‑Not entitled to show‑cause notice before reversion to substantive post‑Cannot be said to "hold" the post during the additional period.
Held, that a Prosecuting Sub‑Inspector of Police promoted to officiate as Prosecuting Inspector "until further orders" "for a period of one year", who, after the lapse of that period, carries on as Inspector for a short time due to exigencies of service, could not be said to be "holding" the higher post after the lapse of one year in the same sense as he was holding it prior to such lapse. The tenure was subject to "further orders" and consequently its termination, and restoration of the incumbent to his substantive post, do not give rise to any legal right in him to claim benefit of any safeguards applicable to a "holder" of the superior post.
M. Ismail Bhatti, Advocate, Supreme Court, instructed by M. A. Rahman, Attorney for Petitioner.
Respondents : Not represented.
Date of hearing : 11th April 1958.
By this petition, one Muhammad Akram Khan seeks special leave to appeal against the refusal to him by the High Court of West Pakistan, of a writ to secure a number of reliefs, of which only one is now being pursued viz., to quash an order of the 28th October 1955 by which he was reverted from a post of officiating Prosecuting Inspector, to his substantive post of Sub‑Inspector of Police. The order appointing him to officiate as a Prosecuting Inspector was to take effect on the 30th September 1954. It was expressed in the following terms, viz.:‑--
"The following Prosecuting Sub‑Inspectors of Police are promoted to officiate as Prosecuting Inspectors until further orders in the appointments sanctioned in Punjab Government's Letter No. 8676‑54/HG, dated the 2nd July 1954 for a period of one year".
It appears that in September 1955, a private complaint of offences under sections 342, 500, P. P. C. was made against Muhammad Akram Khan, in which a charge was framed on the 17th October 1955, and in consequence, on the 25th October 1955, he was placed under suspension, and three days later, the order was made reverting him to his substantive rank. Subsequently, the case was compromised, between the complainant and Muhammad Akram Khan and the latter was acquitted.
The question which is raised in the grounds of this petition is that the order of the 28th October 1955 is an order reducing the petitioner in rank, and could only have been made after allowing him a reasonable opportunity to show cause why it should not be made. The High Court rejected this contention on the ground that the promotion to the post of officiating Prosecuting Inspector was limited by the terms of the order to a particular appointment, whose duration was expressed to be for one year, and therefore, after the expiry of the year, termination of the officiating incumbency could not be regarded as reduction in rank. We agree with this view. The petitioner bases his claim upon the order which has been quoted above, and it seems to us that, in terms, that order must be construed as an order granting officiat ing promotion, confined to one of a number of specific posts, which had been created for a specific period. The words of the order do not convey the sense for which Mr. M. I. Bhatti contends, viz., promotion undefined in respect of duration. When the specified period expired, the officer, although he appears to have been continued in the higher appointment for a short time, presumably in the exigencies of public service, could not be said to be "holding" the higher post in the same sense as he was holding it prior to the 30th September 1955.' The tenure became uncertain and was held subject to "further orders", and conse quently its termination, and his restoration to his substantive post do not give rise to any legal right in him to claim the benefit of any safeguards applicable to a "holder" of the superior post.
We accordingly dismiss this petition.
A. H. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer