Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Case No. 18(68) of 1977, decided on 7th January, 1978.
West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Service of Electrical Engineers Rules, 1965‑‑
‑‑‑R. 3, Schedule B‑‑Recruitment to cadre of junior engineers to be made in proportion of 75 by direct and 75% by promotion‑‑Rule of seniority not applicable in process of direct recruitment‑‑Petitioner possessing Diploma of M.S.E.E. (London) a qualification equivalent to B.Sc. Engineering prescribed for appointment as Junior Engineer appearing in test for recruitment but failing to qualify‑‑Considered unfit for promotion due to unsatisfactory record‑‑Petitioner, in circumstances, held, can have no grievance against appointment of his juniors qualifying test and selected on merit for direct recruitment.
Nemo for Petitioner.
Iqbal Kowkab for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 7th January, 1978.
The case has been called twice. It is now 11‑25 a.m. The petitioner is not present. Mr. Iqbal Kowkab was asked to render explanation for his failure to appear on 5‑11‑1977 and 7‑12‑1977. He met me this morning in my chamber and explained that due to unavoidable circumstances, he could not appear before me on the above dates and expressed unqualified regrets for his omission. The matter, therefore, does not need any further consideration and is hereby dropped.
2. I have heard the arguments of Mr. lqbal Kowkab. The case of the petitioner is that he is Line Superintendent Electrical (Grade I) in the Power Wing of Water and Power Development Authority and is holding that position since 1961. He claims that he possesses the qualifications of M.S.E.E. (London), M.I.E.E.E. (New York) and M.A.S.M.E. (New York), It is his case that the Punjab Engineering University decided that persons holding the qualification of M.S.E.E. (London) and M . I . E . E . E . (New York) would be considered to be holding qualification equal to M.I.E. (Pak.) which again was held equivalent to B.Sc. Engineering vide Letter No. Acad‑8/3/A/72/3349, dated 7th September, 1972 and letter No. Acad‑8/3/A/(72) 4215, dated 5th December, 1972. The petitioner relying on Government of Pakistan Cabinet Division's Letter No. 8/2/71‑D. I, dated 9‑6‑1973 (Annexure) claims that in view of his qualifications which are equivalent to B.Sc. (Engineering), he should have been granted status and pay of Class I Officer.
3. Mr. Iqbal Kowkab has taken me through the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Service of Electrical Engineers Rules, 1985 and it appears from the perusal of these rules that recruitment to the cadre of Junior Engineers is done in the proportion of 75 direct and 25 by promotion. There is no doubt that according to schedule 'B' of these rules read with rule 3, the petitioner would be eligible for promotion from the 25 quota reserved for departmental hands. According to rules which govern the promotion of departmental hands, seniority cum‑fitness and good conduct are the basis for promotion.
It is pointed out that the notification of the Cabinet Division, dated 9‑6‑1973 (copy Annexure 'D') on which the petitioner relies is meant to be applied to graduate engineers or engineers having qualifications equivalent for admission to Central Engineering Service Examination. The learned counsel points out that while the petitioner may be eligible for appointment as junior engineer from the departmental quota as also by direct recruitment after he qualifies in the examination, he does not fall within the cadre of engineers and, therefore, aforesaid notification of the Cabinet Division does not apply to him in terms unless he joins the cadre of engineers either by promotion or by direct recruitment. The learned counsel points out that the qualification of M.I.E.E.E. (New York) was derecognised by the Water and Power Development Authority, but the petitioner still holds Diploma of M.S.E.E. (London) which would ordinarily qualify him to be treated as Class‑I. Officer if he had succeeded in securing an appointment as Junior Engineer either by direct recruitment or by promotion. It has been pointed out with reference to the record, which has been brought by Mr. Muhammad Yusuf A.S.‑I., that the petitioner joined the test meant for direct recruitment in 1973 and 1974 but failed to qualify on both the occasions. So far as departmental promotion is concerned, it is pointed out that he was too junior to be considered for that and the record of his service indicates that he has not given a happy performance of duties as an employee of Water and Power Development Authority. He was dismissed by order, dated 17‑12‑1976, but on appeal the period of his absence from duty and the period during which he remained under orders of dismissal, were treated to be as periods under suspension and the enquiry against him has not yet been finalised.
4. The petitioner at the last hearing submitted that at least six persons who were junior to him in his cadre had been promoted as junior engineers and the rule of seniority had not been strictly observed by Water and Power Development Authority. Mr. Muhammad Yusuf states with reference to record that all these persons mentioned in the replication of the petitioner had been taken by method of direct recruitment and not by way of promotion. It has been stated above that the petitioner attempted twice for his appointment by direct method but failed. The rule of seniority does not govern the process of direct recruitment and, therefore, he should have no grievance against the appointment of his juniors who have been selected on merits directly.
5. The result is that the petitioner's claim fails and the petition is dismissed.
A.E.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer