Find a Lawyer

RUKHSANA PERVEEN versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH THROUGH SECRETARY (EDUCATION) EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,KARACHI

In the Section 9 Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), the Appellant's case in the Section 4 Promotional Intelligence Appellant's Service Tribunal case was that he was eligible to be promoted to the junior instructor position at B14 in the year, but his The matter was not considered. And instead his junior was promoted. The authorities' case was that since the junior was too senior for the appellant, the claim of seniority and publicity before the date of the appellant was neither valid nor appropriate and the reasonable authorities had suppressed the material fact. Provided that Junior had previously appealed to the Tribunal in respect of his seniority, which was rejected by the Tribunal and in the light of the Tribunal's decision, the date of the formal appointment of Junior as Mistress in B8 was 1 1992, While the appellant was appointed chief, the mistress at B11 5 years before the regular appointment of junior in B8, any By the way, the appellant could not be called senior as the appellant was senior, he was entitled to promotion to the post of junior instructor on June 14, when the junior was promoted, the appeal was accepted to that extent. family advocate from Blitang lawyer