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.252/732 of 1984, decided on 21st May, 1985.
(a) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑
‑‑‑S.4‑‑Limitation‑‑Appeal claiming consideration for promotion contested on grounds of limitation inasmuch as eligibility for promotion was barred by notification issued earlier‑‑Appellants not challenging vires of such notification but pressing that same was not applicable and that cause of action arose only when their juniors were promoted‑‑Appeal filed within limitation period from promotion of juniors, held, within time and objection as to limitation repelled.
(b) Punjab Forest Service (Class II) Rules, 1941‑‑‑--
‑‑‑---
West
Pakistan Forest Service (Class I). Rules, 1962, Notification No. SOR‑III‑1‑32/71, dated 16‑4‑1976‑‑Punjab Forest Department (Ministerial/ Executive Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1979‑‑Promotion of Range Forest Officers as Sub‑Divisional Forest Officer in Grade‑17‑ Notification, dated 16‑4‑1976 prescribing Degree or Diploma as minimum qualification for promotion as S.D.F.O., held, would have prospective effect and could not be given retrospective effect.
1982 S C 'M R 888; P L D 1960 S C 105; P L D 1973 S C 144 and 1984 P L C (C.S.) 21 rel.
(c) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑----
‑‑‑S. 4(1)(b)‑‑Promotion‑‑Eligibility and consideration for promotion‑ Distinguishable from prospects of promotion‑‑Appeal claiming eligibility and consideration for promotion, held, maintainable.
1984 S C M R 105 rel.
Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellants.
M. Iqbal Chaudhry for Respondents Nos. 3 to 9.
Masud Ahmad Ghuman, Deputy District Attorney for Respondent Departments.
‑‑ M/s Abdul Wahid Khan, Zakaullah Qureshi, Mian Ghulam Mustafa, Abdul Majid, Nazar Hussain, Sub‑Divisional Forest Officers, have filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which they have impleaded the Chief Conservator of Forests (P&E), Punjab Central Zone, 24‑Cooper Road, Lahore, Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore M/s. Muhammad Masood Javaid Bhutta, Principal, Forest School, Ghoragali, Muhammad Insha Ullah, Assistant Director (Horticulture), Lahore Airport, Ali Hassan Sub‑Divisional Forest Officer, Mianwali (Nurseries), Atta‑ur‑Rehman, Range Officer, Fateh Major, Leiah, Muhammad Zafar, Range Officer, Sohawa, Muhammad Aslam, Assistant Director, Horticulture, L.D.A. and Naseer Hussain, Range Forest Officer, Jaranwala, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal they have prayed that the impugned notification, dated 22‑3‑1984, in so far as it fails to consider the appellants for promotion as Sub‑Divisional Forest Officers, be set aside and respondent No.l be directed that the appellant be considered for promotion for the posts of S.D.F.Os. in B.S‑17, against the existing vacancies of S.D.F.Os. under the provisions of 1962 Service Rules. It has been further prayed that the appellants be declared senior to the contesting respondents 3 to 9.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants joined service in the Forest Department as Forest Ranger on various dates as indicated below: ‑‑--
| (1) | Abdul Whaid Khan | Forester | 25‑5‑1949 |
| (2) | Zakaullah Qureshi | Dy. Ranger | 10‑2‑1957 |
| (3) | Mian Ghulam Mustafa | Dy. Ranger | 11‑6‑1957 |
| (4) | Abdul Majid | Forester | 5‑9‑1944 |
| Nazar Hussain Dy Ranger | Dy. Ranger | 9‑9‑1953 |
The appellants at that time were governed under the Punjab Forest Service (Class II) Rules, 1941, subsequently the Government of Punjab upgraded 87 posts of Forest Rangers to that of Senior Range Forest Officers whereby the appellants were promoted as Senior Range Forest Officer, w.e.f. 11‑3‑1977. Later on 'the West Pakistan Government introduced West Pakistan Forest Service (Class II) Rules, 1962. Under these Rules the appellants were fully eligible for the post of Sub Divisional Forest Officer and Extra Assistant Conservator of Forest. In the said rules a provision was made that promotions to the extent of 67 posts of Sub‑Divisional Forest Officers would be effected. The appellants in order to make themselves eligible for promotion as Sub Divisional Forest Officers and other Class II posts, undertook the departmental training course and obtained Certificate in Forestry from the Pakistan Forest School, Ghora Gali after successful completion of one year's training. It was in the year 1976 that the Government of Punjab issued a Notification No. SOR‑III‑1‑32/71, dated 16‑4‑1976 alongwith the schedule prescribing the minimum qualifications, method of recruitment and age limit for the posts specified therein. According to the said notification 25 of S . D . F . Os. were reserved for promotion from among Forest Rangers/Senior Forest Range Officers who have passed the Examination prescribed for the purpose, with Degree or Diploma from a recognized University or Institution and 12 years experience as Forest Ranger/Senior Range Officer. In the year 1978 the Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab, recommended to the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries Department that the nomenclature of the certificate issued to the Forest Rangers on their successful completion of training be changed to that of Diploma, but the Government did not agree. However, Government issued a notification in 1976 and by virtue of the same it was of the opinion that the conditions laid down in notification of 1976 would be applicable to the appellants. Accordingly in May, 1979, a Committee consisting of 3 Conservators of Forests namely, M/s. S.K. Khanzada, Abdul Qayyum Malik and Abdul Ghani was constituted by Government to consider eligibility of promotee Forest Rangers (non‑Degree holders) from N . P . S . ‑16 to N . P . S . ‑17 , via‑a‑via that Notification of 1976. After detailed deliberations the Committee concluded that there should be no embargo on the promotion of non‑degree holder Forest Rangers from N.P.S.‑16 to N . P . S . ‑17, except that they may be required to pass a technical test before becoming eligible for being considered for such promotion. It was considered that there should be no discrimination between Degree holders and Certificate‑holders Forest Rangers. It is also on record that meanwhile keeping in view the appellants' vast experience in the line they were practically considered fit for the job of S.D.F.Os. and were given the charge of the posts of Sub‑Divisional Forest Officers. In view of the said recommendation, the Secretary, Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries Department agreed and moved the S.G.A. a I Department for necessary amendment in the 1976 Service Rules to the following effect:‑‑
"5 of the vacancies in Grades 17 posts those of S.D.F.Os. should be filled by promotion from amongst the Forest Rangers who have passed the Examination prescribed for the purpose."
This proposal was examined by the Service Rules Committee set up in Services, General Administration and Information Department, which was attended to by the Additional Chief Secretary, Additional Secretary (Reg.) Deputy Secretary, Public Service Commission, Deputy Secretary (Reg. U), Law Department, O.S.D. (P.C.) Finance Department and Under Secretary (Regulations). In principle, the said Committee approved the proposal of the Forest Department with regard to the amendment of 1976 notification. It will be useful to mention here at this stage that the proposal was also examined by the Finance Department, Government of the Punjab, under the Scheme of "Rationalization of Rank Structure of the Provincial "Services", sole purpose of which was to remove the existing imbalances in Service Structure. Recommendation was also made that promotions to the post of Sub‑Divisional Forest Officer be made from among Forest Rangers possessing Certificates in addition to Degree/ Diploma in Forestry. The Governor of Punjab showed his deep concern over the delay observed by the various Departments in the finalization of above‑mentioned Rationalization of Rank Structure, and in view of the concern of the Governor, recommendations to this effect was made that:‑‑
(i) 18 charges of Forest Rangers (N.P.S‑16) be upgraded to those of S.D.F.Os. in N.P.S.‑17 on the basis of charge heaviness;
(ii) ratio between promotion and initial recruitment be raised to 50:50;
(iii) It was not fair to deny promotion chances to those senior Forest Range Officers who had already passed on the Cadre of Forest Rangers and have worked there for 12 years or more simply because they do not possess Diploma/Degree; and
(iv) a Departmental examination at least in three subjects may be prescribed for such promotees.
After due consideration by the Government it was decided that a chance of promotion should not be curtailed by any qualification bar. This decision was duly circulated by Government, vide letter, dated 23‑11‑1980.
4. The contesting respondents were directly recruited as Range Forest Officers. As dates of their appointments as Range Forest Officers was later than the dates of promotion of the appellants they were junior to the appellants in the Seniority List of Senior Range Forest officer.1n view of the stand by the Government and the recommendations so made to this effect, the appellants made a detailed representation in the matter claiming that they be considered eligible for promotion on the strength of 1962 Rules, but, however, the respondent No. 2 has issued a final notification, dated 22‑3‑1984, in, the name of the Governor wherein contesting respondents Nos. 3 to 9 have been promoted as S.D.F.O. with immediate effect but the names of the appellants do not figure anywhere. According to the record of this case the representation so made by them stood rejected. Hence this appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Deputy Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department, and M. Iqbal Chaudhry, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 3 to 5, and have also perused the written statement so filed by him as well as comments submitted by the Secretary, Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries Department.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it is an un-controverted fact on record that the appellants have been declared senior in the seniority list of Forest Rangers to the contesting respondents and it also could not be denied that they would be governed by Rules of 1941 as well as Rules of 1962, which nowhere put an embargo upon the appellants' eligibility for promotion to the rank of S.D.F.Os., therefore, the present notification of 1984 would be violative of Rules of 1962 and was liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant has further relied on Government's own policy circulated with letter, dated 23‑11‑1980 as well as law laid down in this respect by this Tribunal in cases of Makhtar Ahmad and Noor Muhammad and ruling of the Supreme Court of Pakistan cited as 1982 S C M R 888. It has been vehemently argued that in the said law so laid down by this Tribunal as well as by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, this very issue stood resolved without any ambiguity that existing terms and conditions on which they were inducted into service could not be altered by any later amendment or notification raising the qualifications bars. In the alternative it was submitted that if it was assumed that Government could amend the rules and raise embargo the same would be prospective in nature and would not be applicable to the case of the appellants who had entered in service under 1941 Rules and their terms and conditions were further governed by 1962 Rules in this respect.
7. On the other hand learned District Attorney has adopted the comments submitted by Chief Conservator of Forests as well as Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries Department and has submitted that the appeal would not be maintainable on the ground that no terms and conditions of service of the appellants as envisaged in the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, and rules made thereunder, had been violated. It has been forcefully argued that promotion or pro formapromotion could not be claimed as a matter of right as such under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, and such like claims would not be within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal either to grant or consider. It has been submitted that the Governor of the Punjab in exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 23 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, was competent to frame rules and no exception could be taken to the same. Learned Deputy District Attorney further submitted that the appellants were promoted as Senior Range Forest Officer in Grade‑16 in the year 1977, according to the provisions of 1976 Rules, they accepted the same and thus by implication they also agreed in principle with the same and provisions of 1962 Rules would apply to them. Learned Deputy District Attorney took ekception to the stand of the appellants which according to him were blowing hot and cold in the same breath by claiming promotion as S.D.F.Os. in Grade‑17 and at the same time describing the same as invalid. He has also referred to 1941 and 1944 Rules and has submitted that the appellants were governed under Rules of 1976 and their stand that Rules of 1976 were not applicable to them, would be self‑destructive because if the stand is accepted the Rules of 1962 would equally be not applicable in their case.
8. With regard to the merits of the case it has been submitted that the claims of the appellants that they had been promoted as S.D.F.Os. during this period, was without any foundation, as they were allocated extra charge of S.D.F.Os. only in their own pay and scale and in the exigency of service, which could not be considered promotion on regular basis. While referring to Rules of 1962, it has been submitted that under section 23(2) existing rules, orders or instructions in respect of any terms and conditions of service of civil servants in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act would be deemed to be rules, orders under this Act, it was, therefore, obvious that Rules of 1976 would prevail over the West Pakistan Forest Class 11 Rules, 1962, in matters of minimum qualification, method of recruitment, and age limit for the post of Sub‑Divisional Forest Officers, etc. On this analogy it was submitted that provisions of Rules of 1962, which were inconsistent with the Rules of 1976, issued under section 23, read with section 8 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, stood repealed substituted. It was forcefully argued that to challenge the rules of 1976 would be infect challenging the act of rule‑making authority of the Governor,
9. With regard to the recommendations made in favour of the appellants from time to time, it was submitted that Government at its own level had been making certain exercise/ deliberations under the rules considering the terms and conditions of its employees and unless and until such exercise was made by the Government it had no meaning that it could be taken
into account in favour of the appellants' case.
10. With regard to the Policy letter, the same has been misinterpreted as in the presence of the Service Rules the policy letter was of no consequence. Ultimately it was argued that appellants had no right to claim prospective promotions from this Tribunal as the case of prospective promotions did not fall within the jurisdiction ‑of this Tribunal as held by it in case of Saeed Ahmad, etc. decided on 6‑2‑3.984.
11. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and the short issues in this case would be as under:‑‑
(1) Whether the Punjab Forest Service (Class II) Rules, 1941 and West Pakistan Forest Service (Class II) Rules, 1962, would be applicable in order to determine their eligibility for promotion to the posts of S.D. F.Os. in Grade‑17, or they would stand debarred to the said promotion in view of notification, dated 16‑4‑1976, which has laid down the minimum qualification for eligibility to said promotion having degree or diploma; and
(2) Whether the appeal filed by the appellants is barred by limitation or not
Before we enter into the merits of these two issues so struck by us in order to narrow the ambit of the arguments advanced by both the parties before us, we will first of all deal with the issue of limitation.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents as well as learned District Attorney have made their submission on the issue of limitation by arguing that as the appellants were challenging the vires of notification of 1976, they were under obligation to challenge the same before this Tribunal within 30 days of its issuance as the same was made in the name of Governor. In this manner it has been submitted that challenge of the same in the year 1984 would make this present appeal hopelessly time‑barred. To this argument learned counsel for the appellants has taken a stand that
although this notification was in the knowledge of the appellants yet it h‑as given them no cause of action and in fact even today they have not challenged the vires
of the notification and the qualifications so laid down therein but only submit that the same would not be applicable in their case as no such embargo could be placed against the appellants as they were inducted under Rules of 1941 and 1962 and the qualifications in the notification of 1976 would be applicable in prospective manner to the new entrants in service. Moreover the cause of action accrued to them only when their juniors viz. contesting respondents were promoted under the said notification for the first time in the year 1984 and appeal was immediately filed within a period so prescribed for the same. We have given our careful consideration to the arguments advanced on this issue and find lot of force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants for the reasons that nowhere during the course of arguments or in the Memorandum of Appeal, they have neither challenged the power of Governor to issue such notification nor any cause of action was available to them before 1984, as none of their juniors were so promoted during the, period between 1976 and 1984. In view of this situation we are of the considered opinion that the point of limitation raised by the respondents is without any force.
13. With regard to the first issue as to the applicability of Rules of 1941 and 1962, against the impact of notification of 1976 we will refer to our own judgment issued in the case of Ch. Noor Muhammad v Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Communication and Works Department, Lahore, Case No, 475/416 of 1983, decided on 17‑6‑1984, in which identical issue came within the purview of this Tribunals as to find out whether the said Ch. Noor Muhammad would be governed by the old Rules of 1942 for the purpose of eligibility to further promotion under which he was inducted in service or he would be hit by the embargo placed lay Rules of 1967, issued by the Governor enhancing the qualifications for such further promotion in his case. This Tribunal after considering all pros and cons of this case came to a positive conclusion that the said appellant who was inducted into service in accordance with terms and conditions of such service contained in Rules of 1942, which permitted to go forward and earn promotion to higher post of XEN in accordance with the merits of good work, conduct, performance and seniority, therefore, it would be an act of sheer injustice as well as great hardship, if the terms and conditions of service as assured at the time of entry into service are suddenly changed to the detriment of a civil servant. The reasons given in the said judgment were as under:‑‑
"We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and would refer to our earlier decision on which the appellant's counsel has relied, which would be identical case of the nature. In the said judgment it was held as under:‑‑
(1) It is settled principle of law that employment is in the nature of contract between employer and employee and service rules determine the conditions of the employee's prospects for his career. We have no dispute with the proposition that the Government can reserve the right of amending Rules but that must be done when there is sound reason to do so and not just to fill the routine. We in this regard observe after due consideration that as a general rule chance of promotion to the higher posts of general nature (whatever promotion is prescribed as method of recruitment) and where experience can adequately compensate for higher academic knowledge, the persons possessing the same should not be disqualified in that matter."
(2) 'their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan struck down demand of the Government in this respect and held that once a person is employed under a valid order, certain rights are created in his favour and the employer was bound to honour those rights and cannot be allowed to go back on it.
(3) With regard to the issue whether the rule so amended would be prospective in nature or not, would be sufficient to say that taw on this point is settled that rules are always prospective in nature and can never be retrospective in their application unless and until it is specifically mentioned by the rule‑making authority. In the present case the rules cannot in their application be retrospective. Thus, we are fortified in our views that these only apply in the case of those new entrants after the promulgation 4.,a.Y, of said amendment in rules and not to those who have entered into service under the old rules and have worked accordingly
It is a matter of common knowledge that a person with long experience of departmental working in the lower posts acquired professional skill as well as ability and mere requirement of some higher academic qualifications would in no way better their performance and thus it would be a case of hardship as well as injustice to call upon them in the middle of their service or fag end of the same, either to acquire higher academic qualification or to lose their right of promotion in that line,"
We will further refer to the decision of the Government itself circulated, vide letter, dated 23‑11‑1980, which reads as under:‑‑
"I am directed to say that it has lately been observed that Administrative Departments sponsor proposal for amendments in Service Rules seeking enhancement of academic qualification prescribed for promotion to higher posts even if the higher jobs do not require academic knowledge of a higher degree from persons with long experience of departmental working in the lower posts. Except where such amendments become necessary on account of statutory obligations or highly technical and professional nature of the higher posts, over specialization in the matter of promotion militate against the principles of natural justice."
According to law as laid down by Supreme Court of Pakistan in a large number of judgments such general letters have the force of Rules. Two of such authorities are P L D 1960 S C 105 and P L D 1973 S C 144, Government is, therefore, bound by the said policy of 1980.
The said reasonings took strength also from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal reported as 1984 P L C (C.S.) 21, which is also reproduced below:‑‑
"14. The next issue we take up is that of the change in academic qualifications. To expect someone, who joined as Matriculate and rose to be Assistant Director, that he should also pass his B.A. examination in addition to the promotion examination is to except too much. The promotees, generally, reach these ranks towards the fag end of their services. They have enough experience and professional excellence without being graduates. No doubt, the academic qualifications have their place but would be unjust to deprive the promotees of further chances for want of academic qualifications alone. If their record is of an acceptable standard and they have passed he promotion examination, this should suffice."
This judgment was referred to by the Government to the Law Department in order to see whether any appeal could be filed against our judgment. The Law Department after looking into the relevant rules and law on the subject came to the following conclusion:‑‑
"The decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal does not appear to be assailable because the departments are not at liberty to change service conditions including conditions for promotion prescribed at the time, when the appellant was inducted into service. Subsequent enforcement of Rules in 1967, prescribing higher qualification for promotion will not be applicable to the petitioner/ appellant as has rightly been held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. The decision of the Supreme Court reported as 1982 S C M R 888 is also to the same effect.
In view of the matter, there is no question of filing of appeal in this case However, the last date of limitation is 19‑8‑1984."
This advice was accepted by the Government and no appeal was filed against our judgment so delivered in case of Ch. Noor Muhammad. We do not find any distinctive feature of the said reasonings as well as by the Law Department with the present case so before us.
14. It will be useful to mention at this stage that this issue attracted attention of Government at its own level for the first time in the year 1979, when a Committee consisting of three Conservators of Forests namely, M/s. S.K. Khanzada, Abdul Qayyum Malik and Abdul Ghani was constituted by the Government to consider the eligibility of promotee Forest Rangers (non‑Degree‑holders) from N.P.S.‑16 to N.P.S.‑17 via‑a‑via that notification of 1976. After detailed deliberations the Committee concluded that there should be no embargo on the promotion of non‑degree holder Forest Rangers from N.P.S. 16 to N.P.S.‑17 except that they may be required to pass a technical test before becoming eligible for being considered for such promotion. It was further recommended by the said Committee that there should be no distinction and discrimination between Degree‑holders and Certificate holders Forest Rangers, as the appellants are. Accordingly on the basis of the deliberations of that Committee Chief Conservator of Forests Punjab, Lahore, informed the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries Department, vide former's memo. No. dated 24‑5‑1979, that Notification of 1976 had resulted into discrimination between the Degree‑holders and non‑Degree‑holder Forest Range Officers. It was observed that new Notification had adversely affected the promotions of the promotee Forest Rangers who have put in about 20 years service. They are normally Matriculates/F.A. with one year's technical training at the Forest School, Ghoragali and the experience gained by them makes up the deficiency of the Degree course at the Forest College. It was specifically observed therein that generally such promotee Range Forest Officers are better than the Degree‑holders. Accordingly a Draft Notification for amendment in the aforesaid 1976 Rules was sent to the Government. These recommendations remained under active consideration of Government since 1979 onward and the same have now culminated into another notification, dated 8‑4‑1985 as under:‑‑
No. SOR‑III‑1‑6/84.‑‑In exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 23 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to direct that in the Punjab Forest Department (Ministerial/ Executive Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1979, the following further amendment shall be made, namely:‑‑
In the Schedule, for the entry in column 6 against serial No. 30, the following shall be substituted:‑‑
"M Degree or Diploma or Certificate in Forestry from a recognized University/Institute/School; and
(ii) Twelve years' experience as Forest Ranger."
This notification further supports the claim of the appellant that enhancement of qualifications by notification of 1976 was unwarranted and militated against the terms and conditions of their service under which they were inducted regularly by Rules of 1941 and 1962. To elaborate this point further, it would be necessary to mention here that
the earlier rules so mentioned above under which the appellants were inducted into service as Foresters and then promoted as Forest Rangers only required from them to possess a ‑certificate in Forestry from Pakistan Forest School, Ghoragali and Degree and diploma which became a prerequisite for their promotion was an act of hardship absolutely unjustified in their case. The latest notification on the subject E has removed the inequity which was the subject‑matter of appeal before this Tribunal at least to the. extent that it has been recognized by the Government itself that the appellants' qualification of having only a certificate from Pakistan Forest School, Ghoragali plus their vast experience would be equal to the Degree or Diploma from a recognized University/Institute/School. This decision, of the Government goes a long way to support our earlier decision on the subject that it any condition of service is changed that is only prospective in nature and would not affect the persons already inducted in service under the earlier Rules.
15. While dealing with the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents that the appeal of the appellants in the present form would not be maintainable as they are clamouring for promotion a matter which is precluded from the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under section 4(1)(b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. We while repelling this argument of the learned counsel for respondents would rely on the judgment delivered by Division Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in which my Lord Muhammad Afzal ZuRah, Judge, who wrote the judgment, observed as under:‑‑
"It is not denied that questions of eligibility and consideration for promotion are distinguishable from those of prospects of promotion. "
The case has been reported as, Federation of Pakistan and another v. Ramzan Muhammad Chaudhry 1984 S C M R 105. Their Lordships in the said judgment have clearly made a distinction between the prospects of promotion and eligibility and consideration for promotion and thus no ambiguity remains on the subject as we in this judgment have also examined this aspect and would give finding accordingly.
16. In the light of above analysis of the entire facts as well as case‑law on the subject, we proceed to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders in so far as these fail to consider the appellants for promotion. This being see we direct that cases of the appellants who have been held eligible under 1962 Rules be considered for promotion to BS‑17, as S.D.F.Os. on seniority‑cum‑fitness basis, from the date their juniors i.e. the contesting respondents were so promoted. There will be no orders as to costs.
A.E. Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer