Find a Lawyer

(a) Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981)--

---Art. 9--Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4--Civil service- Promotion--Judicial review--All circumstances including A . C . Rs. of relevant period which had a bearing on issue of promotion of civil servant considered by authorities and in result civil servant was not found fit for promotion--Even otherwise civil servant having a remedy and his chances of promotion not completely blocked--Judgment of Authorities, held, was not open to judicial review and High Court could not sit n judgment over promotion of officers, for if it were so, High Court would be substituting its discretion for that of Government which was not contemplated by law--Interference declined in constitutional jurisdiction. --[Civil service].

(b) Civil service

---Promotion are made on merit-cum-seniority basis

(c) Civil service

---Promotion--Prerogative of employer to sit in judgment on suitability or otherwise of his employees as regards his chances of promotion--While deciding issue, employer, however, would be obliged to approach issue with open mind and base his decision on all relevant considerations

Bashir Ahmad Ansari for Petitioner.

Muhammad Asghar, petitioner is a civil servant in the service of Government of Pakistan. At present, he is a Section Officer posted in the Economic Affairs Division, Islamabad and is placed in BPS-17. Petitioner seeks promotion to a higher scale in BPS-18. States that the respondent, despite fitness-cum-seniority, had ignored the claims of the petitioner and instead promoted several others. He complains of his unjustifiable supersession. Against the act of the authority, in ignoring his claim for promotion, petitioner represented to the higher authority, but did not succeed. In this background, petitioner seeks the aid of this Court in constitutional jurisdiction for issue of an appropriate writ or direction to the Government of Pakistan commanding them to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion.

Mr. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate for the petitioner contends that no doubt the respondent was the best judge on the suitability or otherwise of a civil servant to get promotion, but the respondent was obliged to consider all relevant material before it could pass any order for or against. States that in ignoring the petitioner, respondent had not proceeded correctly, inasmuch as, the relevant A.C.Rs of the relevant period were not given due weight and instead the decision was based on one or two A . C . Rs. Learned counsel submits that the quantified results of the A.C.Rs. had to form, the basis for the decision on question of promotion. As the issue of promotion cannot be subjected to appeal before the Service Tribunal, petitioner was constrained to seek relief in constitutional jurisdiction.

After hearing learned counsel at length and examination of the comments submitted by the respondent, I regret, this Court cannot come to the aid of the petitioner. Respondent, in the report submitted to this Court, have expressed that all the relevant circumstances including the A.C.Rs. of the relevant period which had a bearing on the issue of promotion were considered and in the result reached, petitioner was not found fit for promotion. This judgment of the respondent, to my mind, was not open to Judicial review. It is well established principle of law that this Court cannot sit in judgment over, the promotion of officers because if this was so, we would be substituting our discretion for that of the Government which the law does not contemplate. Everybody knows and it is the rule of the Government that promotions are made on merits-cum-seniority. It is the prerogative of the employer to sit in judgment on the suitability or otherwise of his employee as regards his chances of promotion. There is no dispute that in deciding this issue the employer is obliged to approach the issue with open mind and to base his decision on all relevant considerations. 1n this case, I find from the comments of the Government that the petitioner's case was adequately considered but unfortunately decision was against him. In such circumstances, appeal to constitutional jurisdiction. I a, afraid, may not be found entertainable.

Petitioner may not be without a remedy. It is not his case that his chances for further promotion have been completely blocked. May it be l observed that if and when occasion arises petitioner's case for promotion may be reconsidered and if found worthy of consideration, petitioner may be given relief. With these observations, 1 feel that this writ petition does not succeed and is dismissed summarily.

M . Y . H . Petition 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.