FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Establishment and others vs IDREES-UL-HASSAN USMANI

' JAVED IQBAL, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal is preferred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan on behalf of Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment, against the judgment dated 20-12-2006 whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of respondent has been accepted.

2. .Precisely stated that facts of the case are that the respondent "joined National Saving Organization in the capacity of National Saving Officer (B-11 in 1973) and gradually promoted to the post of Assistant Director (B-17) as per Notification dated 12-9-1984 subject to passing departmental examination. The appellant passed such departmental examination during probation period, however, during probation period appellant was reverted to the post of National Saving Officer vide order, dated 10-9-1986, without assigning any reason, against which appellant preferred Appeal No,7(K)(C.S.) of 1987 before this Tribunal, but could not succeed as the reversion order was passed during probation period without stigma. Appellant was then proceeded against departmentally on petty charges of over payment of Rs,2,400 for the period of last twelve years at different National Saving Centres, vide charge-sheet dated 22-2-1987. The said proceedings remained pending for quite long period of 8 years and finally appellant was exonerated from the charge vide order dated 31-5-1995. Thereafter appellant was awarded Selection Grad-17 (w,e,f, 13- 6-1995) vide Notification dated 12-9-1996. He was also granted move-over from B-16 to B-17 w,e,f, 1- 12-1993 vide letter dated 28-2-1998. He was, however, not considered for regular promotion to the post of Assistant Director (B-17) because of pendency of departmental proceedings. After more than 14 years, appellant was again considered and found fit for promotion and thus, promoted to the post of Assistant Director (B-17) vide Notification dated 19-9-2000 but again the promotion was made subject to passing departmental examination, which in fact, appellant had already cleared and passed. Appellant while on probation was granted move-over from B-17 to B-18 w,e,f, 1-12-1998 vide letter/order dated 1-2-2002. Appellant was, however, forced to appear and pass/clear the departmental examination, which he had already passed and cleared in 1986. On 18-9-2002 appellant's promotion period was also over, but suddenly he was served with a show-cause notice dated 7-8-2003 (i,e, much after the expiry of probation period) alleging that appellant failed to pass/clear departmental examination, which the appellant replied on 30-8-2003 explaining each and every detail and stated that since he had already passed/cleared the departmental examination, therefore, he was not required to. Pass/clear the same once again. His reply was not found satisfactory and ultimately by order, dated 25-5-2004 he was awarded penalty of reversion from the post, of Assistant Director (B-17) to that of National Saving Officer (B-17)". Being aggrieved a departmental appeal was preferred but without any response. The respondent ultimately approached the Federal Service Tribunal by means of Appeal bearing No,211(K)(C.S.) of 2004 which has been accepted, hence this petition.

3. Ms. Naheeda Mehboob Elahi, learned Deputy Attorney-General entered appearance on behalf of petitioner and contended that the legal and factual aspects of the controversy have not been appreciated in its true perspectives which resulted in serious miscarriage-of justice. It is Contended vehemently that the provisions as contained in section 6 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 read with Finance Division Notification No,S.R.O.-1271(I)/90 have been misconstrued and misinterpreted.

4. We have carefully examined the view point as canvassed at bar by the learned Deputy Attorney- General and perused the judgment impugned carefully. It is an admitted feature of the case that various employees were granted exemption from passing the departmental examination by the Competent Authority and learned Deputy Attorney-General could offer no plausible justification for such exemption. It is worth-mentioning that the respondent was promoted to the post of Assistant Director (B-17) subject to. Passing departmental examination during the probation period which was undisputedly passed by the respondent. It is not understandable that how this- condition was reemployed in. Notification dated 19-9-2000 whereby the respondent was promoted to the, post of Assistant Director. The learned Deputy Attorney-General was asked pointedly that under which provision of law the respondent was bound to pass departmental examination twice but no satisfactory answer could be given and reference was made to the provisions as contained in section 6 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and S.R.O.1271(I)/90 which cannot be made applicable in this case as no condition for passing the departmental examination twice has been laid down either in section 6 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 or S.R.O.1271(1)/90. It is to be noted that a few blue eyed chaps have been exempted from passing the departmental examination who were subsequently, promoted as conceded by the learned standing counsel before the learned Federal Service Tribunal. Thecase of respondent was surely on better footings and thus, the imposition of condition for passing the departmental examination again is not only illegal but highly unjustified. Beside that no question of law of public importance is involved which is sine qua non for invocation of the provisions as contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. All the contentions raised on behalf of petitioner have been dealt with in a comprehensive manner in the judgment impugned which being well-based hardly warrants interference. The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed and .