Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. D‑139 of 1985, decided on 5th August, 1985.

‑‑‑Art.9‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Extraordinary remedy‑‑Vested right‑‑Promotion‑‑Aggrieved petitioner not seeking remedy at departmental level‑‑Nothing on record available to show whether case of petitioner was considered or not at time of promoting respondents‑‑Case not being of denial of promotion on super-session petitioner, held, was not entitled to relief in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction

‑‑‑Art. 9‑‑Practice‑‑Respondent (Government department) not complying with directions of Court repeatedly given regarding filing of comments‑ Serious notice of such default on part of respondent taken‑‑Such practice strongly deprecated by Court.

Kanwar Mukhtar Ahmad for Petitioner.

.‑‑The present petition has been filed by Syed Baleeghur Rehman, a Principal Appraiser, Valuation Department of Customs, to challenge an order whereby respondents Nos. 3 to 12 have been promoted as Assistant Collectors. The petitioners' contention is that he was an officer in Grade‑17 and he had a right to be appointed as Assistant Collector but his right has been violated by not considering him for such appointment and the appointment of respondents Nos. 3 to 12 is illegal.

It is admitted position that Principal Appraiser and Assistant Collector of Customs are Grade‑17 officers. Mr. Kanwar Mukhtar however, states that in the hierarchy of the Customs an Assistant Collector enjoys higher power and privileges than a Principal Appraiser although both these officers are in the same grade.

In order to understand the actual girevance of the petitioner, paragraph 6 of the petition may be perused which states that the petitioner had held higher post than the post held by the respondents Nos. 3 to 12 and that he had a vested right to be considered for 'promotion'. It seems the petitioner is labouring under misconception by thinking that the post of the Assistant Collector is a higher post and the appointment of respondents Nos. 3 to 12 is a promotion to a grade higher than the grade in which the petitioner is serving. This misconception is clear because both he posts are in Grade‑17.

We asked the learned Advocate as to how have the rights of the petitioner being affected and all that he stated before us was that the Assistant Collector would have a greater chance of promotion as Deputy Collector.

We have not been able to understand this argument because the petitioner who is in grade‑17, would naturally come up for consideration when any post in Grade‑18 falls vacant. But hardly any person in service of Pakistan can hold a particular post unless he can show that he cannot be posted in that post as his status or grade in service is reduced. This is not the case here.

A further reason which has pursuaded us to decline interference in this case is that the petitioner admittedly did not seek any remedy at the departmental level. We are not holding that he has a right to B appear before Service Tribunal but we only state that before approaching this Court for grant of extraordinary remedy, the petitioner should have made a demand of justice from the departmental authority and brought his grievance to their notice. This he has not done. The petition for this reason is premature also.

Moreover, the relief that is sought in this petition is also not one that can be granted in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the order of promotion of respondents Nos. 3 to 12 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to rules because before passing the order the case of the petitioner was not considered. There is nothing, before us to show that the case of the petitioner has or has not been considered. This was all the more reason that the petitioner should have made a demand of justice at the departmental level and having failed to do so, he is not entitled to get relief from this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. The long and short is that it is not a case of denial of promotion or super-session. He will continue to be in Grade‑17. He cannot have a grievance solely on the ground that he should hold a particular post in Grade‑17.

For the above reasons, we find no substance in this petition, which we dismiss in limine.

By an order, dated 4‑4‑1985 comments were called from respondent No. 2. Comments were not submitted so that a second direction was issued on 24‑4‑1985 but still there was no compliance. There was still a further direction by this Court on 16‑5‑1985 but the order of this Court has not been complied with. We take very serious notice of default of this nature, which has become very common. We are refraining from taking any action but making it clear that we, shall take very serious notice in future. After all orders of Court have to be complied with and particularly in case when three opportunities have been given. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to respondent No. 2 and also to the Secretary of the Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan.

S.A. Dismissed in limine.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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