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.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 247‑R of 1984, decided on 5th October, 1985.
(On appeal from judgment and order of Federal Service Tribunal Islamabad, dated 24‑4‑1984 passed in Appeal No. 225 (R) of 1982).
‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Sub‑Divisional Magistrate Promotion Rules, 1973, r.7‑‑Promotion‑‑Name of petitioner excluded from consideration for promotion as Sub‑Divisional Magistrate‑‑Petitioner asserting that he was borne on Seniority List of Tehsildars and Administrative Officer eligible for promotion as Divisional Magistrate and Treasury Officers‑‑Appeal of petitioner before Service Tribunal against not being considered for promotion by Departmental Promotion Committee dismissed on ground that he did not satisfy requirement of Rules as he had not passed prescribed departmental examination‑‑Petitioner's case not covered by Rules applicable for promotion to post of Sub‑Divisional Magistrate and petitioner failing to show that he was an incumbent of one of those specified categories of posts whose incumbents were eligible for promotion to post of Sub‑Divisional Magistrate‑‑Seniority list on which he relied was of no avail for it neither controlled rules nor it was of any assistance in interpreting rules‑‑Right claimed by petitioner not supported by any of rules referred or relied‑‑Leave to appeal refused in circumstances.
S.A. Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court with M. Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 5th October, 1985.
The petitioner a civil servant, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 24‑4‑1984, whereby his appeal was dismissed.
2. The petitioner holds the post of Administrative Officer in the Deputy Commissioner's Office, Chilas, a District in Northern Areas. He considered himself due for promotion as Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, as he was borne on the Seniority List of Tehsildars and Administrative Officers eligible for promotion to the posts of Divisional Magistrates and Treasury Officer. As he was not being considered at all by the Departmental Promotion Committee, he appealed to the Service Tribunal against his exclusion. The Tribunal rejected his claim on the ground that he did not satisfy the requirements of the rules as he had not passed the prescribed departmental examination.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the Seniority List to point out that he was eligible to be considered for promotion, that all senior to him who deserved to be promoted had already been promoted and that the claim of no person having a better eligibility stood in his way. The grievance of the petitioner was that he was being subjected to a condition which was yet at the draft stage and had not received the approval of the competent authority nor had it acquired the force of a rule. The petitioner's exclusion, according to the learned counsel, was unprecedented, unjustified and unsupportable in law.
4. The rules applicable for promotion to the post of Sub‑Divisional Magistrate are those prescribed on 26th March, 1973. Rule 7 thereof provides that promotions to the post of Sub‑Divisional Magistrate shall be made by selection from amongst the incumbents of the posts of "(i)' Tehsildars (ii) Public Prosecutor (iii) Lawyer Magistrate". In order to claim eligibility under the rules the petitioner had to show that he was an incumbent of one of these posts. He has failed to show it. His claim is not that he falls in any of these specified categories. The seniority list on which he relies is of no avail for it neither controls the rules nor is it of assistance in interpreting the rules.
5. The other statutory instrument on which reliance is placed in circular, dated 19th August, 1979, whereby the recommendations/ observations of enquiry committee constituted under M.L.O. 10 was accepted and a direction was issued to implement the same immediately. Recommendation (c) provided for the drawing up a joint seniority list which was done. Recruitment rules of inter alia, Administrative Officers were ordered to be immediately framed as none existed (clause d). Inter se transfers of Tehsildars and Administrative Officers, unless in public interest was ordered to be avoided (clause g). None of these recommendations directly or indirectly affects rule 7 relating to the recruitments of Sub‑Divisional Magistrates. The Administrative Officers have not been made eligible for promotion as Sub‑Divisional Magistrates. The Tribunal has rightly declined to interfere in the matter. The right claimed by the petitioner is not supported by any of the rules referred or relied upon.
6. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
M. Y. H. Petition dismissed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer