Find a Lawyer

Case No. 176/1711 of 1982, decided on 22nd February, 1983.

‑‑‑Ss. 8(2)(b) a 10(2)‑‑Determination of fitness for promotion by Departmental Promotion Committee‑‑Fitness determined and promotion made‑‑Fresh scrutiny for purposes of reversion on arrival of senior incumbent not called for‑‑Action, in circumstances, to be taken under S. 10(2) by reversion of junior most and reversion of senior by retaining junior in higher post on basis of fresh scrutiny by Departmental Promotion Committee, held, unlawful.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑‑The appellant, Muhammad Ikram, Assistant, office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kasur, has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded Deputy Commissioner, Kasur, Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, and Muhammad Asghar Ali, officiating Assistant, office of Deputy Commissioner, Kasur, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 3‑2‑1982 and 27‑3‑1982 be set aside and the appellant be allowed to continue working as Assistant.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was promoted as Assistant w.e.f. 3‑3‑1981 in the Land Reforms Branch, on temporary basis, vide order, dated 12‑3‑1981 (Annexure 'A') by Deputy Commissioner, Kasur. However, later on, respondent No. 1, felt: that this promotion had not been processed through an appropriate Promotion Committee. Accordingly aforesaid order, dated 12‑3‑1982 was set aside vide order, dated 17‑3‑1982 Annexure 'B'). Accordingly, the case of promotion to the post of Assistant of the appellant alongwith others was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee. On the basis of the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, vide its minutes, dated 21‑3‑1981, the appellant was promoted as Assistant vide order, dated 22‑3‑1981 (Annexure 'C'), whereby the appellant's original promotion, dated 12‑3‑1981 was restored. The promotion appointment of the appellant was extended from 1‑12‑1981 to 31‑5‑1982 on usual terms and conditions already laid down in the appointment letter, vide D.C., Kasur order, dated 16‑1‑1982. In the meanwhile, the case of the appellant was again scrutinized by the District Promotion/ Selection Committee for purposes of reversion of one of the officiating Assistants. As record of respondent No. 3, was found better than that of the appellant, the appellant was ignored for promotion and reverted to his substantive post i.e. senior clerk w.e.f. 7‑1‑1982, vide Deputy Commissioner, Kasur's order, dated 3‑2‑1982. The appellant filed an appeal, dated 6‑2‑1982 to Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, which was rejected by his order, dated 27‑3‑1982. Hence this appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant was promoted after determining his fitness by the District Promotion/ Selection Committee. On the basis of the satisfactory record the appellant was declared by the Committee fit for the post of Assistant and was promoted by the Deputy Commissioner, Kasur. He was considered for this promotion by the Committee alongwith Mr. Muhammad Asghar Ali, respondent No. 3, who is junior to him and they were declared fit after scrutiny of their service record. Scrutiny of the record of the appellant alongwith Mr. Muhammad Asghar Ali respondent again by a District Promotion/ Selection Committee was not in accordance with the rules and was illegal, as the service record had already been scrutinized by the previous District Promotion/ Selection Committee and the appellant was declared fit for promotion as Assistant (the same post) and thus scrutiny of the record under section 8(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, as mentioned by respondent No. 1, in his impugned order, dated 3‑2‑1982, was uncalled for and not required. This matter was concerning reversion of one of the officiating assistants, and is covered under section 10(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, which clearly lays down that in the event of a post being abolished or number of posts in a cadre or grade being reduced, the services of the most junior person in such cadre or grade shall be terminated. The counsel for the appellant further submitted that the matter was very simple and Mr. Muhammad Asghar All being junior most should have been reverted. Furthermore, the Promotion Committee could not review this case of appellant again as he was declared fit for the same post by the previous Promotion Committee after due scrutiny of his record.

5. Controverting these arguments the learned District Attorney submitted that Mr. Abdul Rashid, a senior Assistant had returned from leave and on his joining duty, one of the officiating Assistants had to be reverted. The competent authority thought it fit to again put the case before the District Promotion/Selection Committee and on the recommendations of the Committee the appellant was reverted. Thus no illegality has been done and the appellant has been reverted lawfully.

6. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record of this case. We agree with the learned counsel for the Appellant that this matter was to be dealt with under section 10(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, and it did not require scrutiny of the matter under section 8(2)(b) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. Fitness of the appellant vis‑a‑vis Mr. Muhammad Asghar Ali had already been determined by the District Promotion/ Selection Committee and after his fitness the appellant was promoted as Assistant by Deputy Commissioner, vide his impugned order, dated 22‑3‑1981. Thus putting the matter again before the District Promotion/ Selection Committee for the same post was uncalled for unnecessary and not. required because the fitness of both the appellant and respondent, No. 3 had already been decided. Junior most official i.e. Mr. Muhammad Asghar Ali, who was junior to the appellant should have been reverted as laid down under section 10(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, which reads as follows:‑

"(2) In the event of a post being abolished or number of posts in a cadre or grade being reduced, the services of the most junior person in such cadre or grade shall be terminated."

It appears that it was not brought to the notice of the Authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Kasur, when the case was scrutinized by the District Promotion/ Selection Committee for the second time that the matter had already been scrutinized by the District Promotion/Selection Committee and the fitness of the appellant vis‑a‑vis of the respondent No. 3 had already been decided by the Promotion Committee. The minutes of the District Promotion/ Selection Committee, Kasur held second time on 3‑2‑1982 under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Kasur, does not say anything about the fitness of the appellant and the respondent No. 3 Mr. Muhammad Asghar Ali declared earlier.

7. Keeping the above facts in view, we hold that the scrutiny of the case of the appellant again by the District Promotion/ Selection Committee was not required and is unlawful. Mr. Muhammad Asghar Ali, respondent No. 3, who is junior to the appellant, should have been reverted as per provision of section 10(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, referred to in above para.

8. Keeping the above analysis in view, the impugned orders are' set aside and the appeal of the appellant is accepted. Resultantly, Mr. Muhammad Asghar Ali, respondent No. 3, junior to the appellant, is, directed to be reverted while the appellant is directed to be promoted in his place as Assistant against the post sanctioned for the Land Reform Cell.

There will be no orders as to costs.

A.E.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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