Find a Lawyer

Case No. 497 of 1984, decided on 11th March, 1985.

‑‑Ex‑servicemen quota fixed by Government for initial recruitment‑Cannot be claimed in post filled by promotion‑Ex‑service man joining against quota as Process‑server‑claiming appoint ment as Naib‑Nazir‑Post of Naib‑Nazir open for promotion from amongst Process‑serving Establishment‑Appointment made from Process‑serving Establishment on seniority‑cum‑fitness basis, in circumstances, held, not exceptionable and claim for its being filled by ex‑serviceman serving as Process‑server rejected‑Punjab service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑ Faizul Hassan, Process‑Server, Civil Courts, Jhang, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, against the orders dated 20th May 1984 and 21st March, 1984, passed by respondents Nos. I and 2. He has impleaded the District Judge, Jhang, Senior Civil Judge, Jhang and Bahawal Khan, Naib‑Nazir Civil Courts Jhang, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and appellant be appointed as Naib‑Nazir against the post reserved for ex‑servicemen.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an ex‑serviceman and was recipient of "Tamgha‑e‑Khidmat" and "Tamgha‑i‑Harb" in Indo Pak Wars 1965 and 1971. The appellant was promoted from the post of Process‑Server to the post of Naib‑Nazir' against the quota reserved for ex‑servicemen. The respondent No. 2 appointed respondent No. 3 by promotion as 'Naib‑Nazir, vide order dated 21st March 19‑84, against which the appellant felt aggrieved. He filed appeal against the said order dated 21st March, 1984, before respondent No. 1, who dismissed it on 20th May, 1984. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the appellant in person as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of one Department and have perused the detailed comments of the learned District Judge, Jhang.

5. The appellant has submitted that the post of Naib‑Nazir falling to the share of ex‑servicemen, could not be given to a civilian vide Govern ment Letter No. S (R) 516/2‑124/68 dated 15th April, 1969. According to the appellant on the basis of "promotion by rotation" and there being no ex‑servicemen available in Jhang Civil District, the appellant was entitled to be promoted against the vacancy given to respondent No. 3.

6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the initial order by which the appellant was appointed was passed by Senior Civil Judge, Jhang, vide order dated 19th April, 1982, in which it was clearly laid down that the appellant was temporarily promoted as Naib‑Nazir on ad hoc basis and his promotion will not create any tight and he can be reverted at any time without notice. He was promoted and posted as Naib‑Nazir Tameel against the existing vacancy. He has further adopted the comments of the learned District Judge, Jhang in extenso and has prayed that the appeal be dismissed being without any merit.

7. We have given out anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the appellant is an ex‑serviceman and is Matriculate. He passed the Matriculation Examination after joining service as Process‑Server in the office of Senior Civil Judge, Jhang. How ever he failed in English in the said examination. The appellant was promoted as Naib‑Nazir on the suspension of Muhammad Ashraf Naib‑Nazir on temporary ad‑hoc basis with the clear under standing that this promotion would not create any right in his favour. This vacancy had occurred for a short period and as no other official was available at the Headquarter possessing the required qualification the appellant was promoted on ad‑hoc basis. We further find and are in agreement with the learned District Judge that the post of Naib‑Nazir falls in BS‑5 but the promotions were made by the Senior Civil Judge from amongst Process Serving Establishment on seniority‑cum‑fitness basis, and direct recruitment for this post was not permissible, because Government instructions of 25 and 50% for the quota of ex‑servicemen is for initial recruitment and not for promotion. We do not find the argument of the appellant impressive that it was his right to be considered for promotion on the basis of ex‑serviceman as the said quota has already been availed by him at the time of initial recruitment. It would be unjustified to give him second benefit as it would jeopardise the rights off others working in the same category.

8. In view of the above we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed.

A.E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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