Find a Lawyer

DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (SCHOOLS), FAISALABAD DIVISION and 3

others

Case No. 284/213 of 1983, decided on 3rd June, 1984.

---S.4(a)‑‑Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974), S.21‑‑Appeal before Tribunal‑‑Condition precedent‑‑Exhausting departmental remedies‑ Representation to authority next higher than authority passing impugned order not made‑‑Appeal before Tribunal, in circumstances, held, not maintainable.

Zawwar Hussain Malik for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

Ghulam Shabbir, Senior Clerk, District Education Office, Jhang has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the respondents as mentioned above.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the appellant be declared senior among the respondents mentioned at page 2 of the appeal with all back benefits.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined the Education Department as Junior Clerk on 22‑9‑1963 and was promoted as Senior Clerk on 7‑12‑1976. 10 persons as mentioned in para. 3 of the appeal were promoted as assistants w.e.f. 10‑11‑1982 vide order, dated 11‑11‑1982 of respondent No.1, wherein the appellant was ignored. The appellant represented to respondent No. 1, vide copy of representation, dated 16‑11‑1982 Annexure 'B', which is still undecided. Hence this appeal.

4. I have heard the parties. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been ignored from promotion as admitted by the respondents the A.C.R's for the years 1978, 1979 and 1981 of the appellant were missing and his case was deferred by the Divisional Promotion Committee on these grounds. The A. C. Rs. were to be written and maintained by the Departmental Authorities concerned and ignoring the appellant for promotion on this ground, is uncalled for, unjust and unlawful. The appellant's counsel has prayed that the departmental authorities be directed to promote the appellant from the same date from which his juniors were so promoted and seniority be given to the appellant above 10 persons mentioned in para. 3 of the appeal.

5. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney has pointed out that the appellant was required to file a representation to next higher authority i.e. the Director of Public Instruction (Schools) Punjab, Lahore as envisaged under section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, against the order, dated 11‑11‑1982 of Director of Education (Schools), Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad wherein the appellant was ignored for promotion. But the appellant has filed the representation to the Director of Education (Schools), Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad who was not the proper authority and is not in accordance to the Rules. As the appellant has not yet exhausted the departmental remedy, hence the appeal is not maintainable under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.

6. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have consulted the record in this case as well. The appellant has been aggrieved of an Order No.9/1‑SA(82)/5056, dated 11‑11‑1982, passed by the Director of Education (Schools), Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad. The appellant was required to make a representation to the next higher authority i.e. the Director of Public Instruction (Schools), Punjab, Lahore under section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 but he has failed to do so. I agree with the view point put forth by the learned District Attorney, as the appellant has not exhausted the departmental remedy, this appeal is not maintainable before this Tribunal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.

7. The upshot of the above analysis of the case is that the appeal is not maintainable before this Tribunal and is dismissed accordingly.

There are no orders as to costs.

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.