Find a Lawyer

Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development,

Punjab, Lahore and another

Case No. 157/317 of 1985, decided on 9^th January, 1986.

(a) Punjab Local Council Service (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983-----

---R.23--Promotion of employee--Qualification and requirement--Graduate employees were to be promoted--Relaxation of condition of qualification, held, could not be claimed as matter of right=-Competent authority could not be directed by Service Tribunal to act against discretion of competent authority.

---S. 4--Appeal against refusal to promote employee--Where decision of authority was based on exercise of discretion, employee having no vested right to be promoted, Service Tribunal, held, would not interfere particularly when decisions of authority would be inclined to promote qualified officers.

Haji Mushtaq Ahmad Aqil for Appellant.

Malik Ghulam-us-Sayyadain for Respondent.

.-- Pir Mahmood Shah has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the order, dated 17-2-1985 passed by Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Punjab, Lahore (respondent No.l). The appellant has impleaded the Secretary Local Government and the Punjab Local Government Board, Lahore as respondents.

2. Through this appeal the appellant Mahmood Shah has prayed that the impugned order, dated 17-2-1985 of the Secretary, Local Government, Punjab may be set aside and the respondent No.l to be directed to grant relaxation of the condition regarding educational qualifications of the appellant.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Pir Mahmood Shah while he was serving Taxation Officer, Zi1a Council, Sahiwal filed representation on 17-1-1985 to the Secretary, Punjab Local Government for promotion to BS-18 but it was filed vide letter, dated 17-2-1985 addressed to the appellant on the ground that the prescribed qualification for BS-18 is Graduate from a recognised University under the Punjab Local Councils (Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1983 but the appellant was not a graduate from any recognised University. The letter indicated that for the said reason the appellant was superseded and not promoted to BS-18. Hence this appeal.

4. At the time of arguments learned counsel for the appellant contended that the officers junior to him were promoted to BS-18. The learned counsel for the appellant further stated that in the case of Shuja-ul-Hassan the qualification was relaxed vide order, dated 27-6-1975 and in the case of Ch. Sardar Muhammad the qualifications were relaxed vide order, dated 20-6-1981 and 14-3-1981. The learned counsel for the appellant stressed that the respondent departments were not justified to act discriminately against the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant closed his arguments stating that while rejecting the represen tation of the appellant the Secretary, Local Government (respondent No.l) did not give opportunity for personal hearing to the appellant.

5. The learned Deputy District Attorney opposed the appeal and stated that the appellant was basically a Taxation Officer in the Zila Council, Sahiwal in BS-17 and he was never posted as Chief Officer, Zi1a Council Sahiwal on regular basis. The learned Deputy District Attorney on the strength of the version of the respondents stated that rule 23 of the Punjab Local Council Service (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983 relates the relaxation for reasons to be recorded in writing in consultation with the Local Government Board if strict application would cause undue hardship to any concerned individual. The representation of the appellant was considered by the Government and it was observed by the Board in its meeting held on 27-9-1984 that in a similar case of Mr. Abdul Qadir Shah, Accounts Officer the educational qualifications were not relaxed. The Punjab Local Government Board was of the view that graduate officers were available for promotion and as such there was no need for relaxation of rules in favour of those who did not qualifiy for promotion. Accordingly the appellant was superseded because he was not a graduate. Learned Deputy District Attorney further stated that after a policy decision of the Punjab Local Government Board for not relaxing the education qualification no such relaxation was made and, therefore, the earlier precedents were not relevant. The learned Deputy District Attorney closed his arguments while stating that relaxation of the qualifications were discretion of the Government as well as the Local Government Board and could not be j, claimed as a matter of right.

6. We have carefully considered the points so raised by learned counsel for the appellant and learned Deputy District Attorney for the respondents. We have consulted the record including the departmental comments. We are of the considered opinion that undisputedly the appellant is not qualified because he is not a graduate of any recognised University. Secondly it may be understood that relaxation of any condition or qualification cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the competent authority cannot be directed to act against their discretion. Lastly the Punjab Local Government Board in their meeting in 1983 made a policy decision and in the specific case of the appellant Pir Mahmood Shah cited the related case of 69r. Abdul Qadir Shah, Accounts Officer, whose educational qualifications were cast relaxed on the ground that Graduate Officers were available for promotion and there was no need for relaxation.

7. Hence there is no justification to interfere with the impugned order particularly when the decisions are also inclined to promote qualified officers. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

A.A. Appeal 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.