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.
Appeal No. 333/11 of 1985, decided on 16th February, 1987.
‑‑S. 4‑‑Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), preamble‑‑Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance (XLV of 1977), S. 7‑‑Office Memorandum No. 1/2/75‑ARC, dated 27‑1‑1975, para. 7(b)‑‑Selection of civil servants to higher posts by direct recruitment‑‑Promotional examination whether permissible‑‑Claim of promotion on basis of seniority‑cum‑fitness to such higher post not accepted‑‑Appointment through selection after holding the examination by Public Service Commission, held, is an initial appointment and not appointment by promotion‑ ‑Provisions of para. 7(b) of Office Memorandum of 27th January, 1975 envisages selection from amongst Grades 1 to 16 employees by direct recruitment irrespective of seniority‑‑Holding of promotional examination would be quite in order‑ Plea that only senior‑most persons should be considered for promotion was repelled by Service Tribunal‑‑Appeal of civil servant claiming selection on basis of seniority‑cum‑fitness was dismissed as not maintainable.
Raja Muhammad Asghar Khan for Appellant.
Muhammad Amir Akbar Khan for the State.
Respondent No. 4 in person.
Date of hearing: 16th February, 1987.
‑‑ The appellant, Manzoor Hussain, is serving in the Ministry of Defence and since 1967 he is holding the post of assistant first in B‑11 and then in B‑14. On 1‑4‑1984, the Defence Ministry circulated an office order of the Federal Public Service Commission dated 26‑3‑1984 inviting applications for Promotional Examination for the post of Section Officer. The appellant represented against this order by way of representation dated 28‑4‑1984, which was rejected on 24‑6‑1984.
2. The appellant's case is that the advertisement dated 26‑3‑1984 was ultra vires the provisions of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, section 7 of the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977; para. 7 (b) of the Office Memorandum No.1/2/75‑ARC, dated the 27th January, 1975, whereby the Office Management Group was formed, and the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1973. He challenges the holding of examination through the Federal Public Service Commission and also the appointment made as a result of the examination held by the Commission during the pendency of the present appeal.
3. Para. 7 of the Office Memorandum of 27th January, 1975 provides that there shall be reserved 2/3rd vacancies of the Section Officers in B‑17 by direct recruitment through the Federal Public Service Commission, while the remaining 1/3rd shall be filled in by promotion of the eligible departmental candidates through Promotional Examination conducted by the Federal Public Service Commission. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that section 7 of the Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977 envisages the appointment to the post through Commission by direct recruitment and not by promotion. It was pointed out that promotion is governed by the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 which do not provide for holding of examination and the promotions are made on the basis of seniority‑cum‑fitness.
4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties. Though the Office Memorandum of 27th January, 1975 speaks of promotion for filling the 1/3rd vacancies, nevertheless, in our opinion, this promotion is not in the sense in which it is ordinarily understood. Needless to say that the posts from Grades‑11 to 16 are in different Ministries, Divisions and Departments and there is no consolidated seniority list. The appointment to the post of Section Officer is made from all Ministries, Divisions and the Departments irrespective of their inter se seniority. The question of promotion would have arisen only if there was a provision that persons in B‑16 shall be promoted first on seniority‑cum‑fitness basis to the post of Section Officer in B‑17. The appointment through) selection after holding the FPSC examination is also an initial appointment and not appointment by promotion as understood normally. The provisions, of para. 7 (b) of the Office Memorandum of 27th January, 1975, in fact, envisages the selection from amongst Grade 1 to 16 employees by direct recruitment irrespective of seniority. In these circumstances, it is not correct to say that the Promotional Examination cannot be held and only the senior most persons should be considered for promotion.
5. We find no substance in this appeal, which, as a result, is dismissed with no order as to costs.
A.A. /362/Lb/S
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer