EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE) BAHAWALPUR and others vs MUHAMMAD ATTIQUE and another
This civil appeal with leave of the Court challenges the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby respondent No. 1's service appeal was accepted and he was directed to be considered for antedated promotion as Naib Tehsildar from the date a vacancy was improperly reserved for another candidate. The core legal question was whether a civil servant can be denied promotion and whether an antedated promotion is justified when a vacancy is illegally reserved and the senior candidate is ineligible due to pending inquiries or being posted out of the district. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Departmental Promotion Committee acted with mala fide by illegally reserving a post for an ineligible candidate who was working out of the district, thereby bypassing the next eligible and senior person. The Court upheld the Tribunal's judgment and dismissed the appeal, establishing that manipulation in promotion processes to favour specific candidates through illegal reservation of posts vitiates the departmental action and justifies judicial intervention.
- Whether an employee can claim consideration for promotion when a vacancy is illegally reserved for another candidate?
- Does the reservation of a promotional post for an ineligible candidate working out of the district amount to mala fide?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a Service Tribunal's judgment that corrects an injustice in departmental promotion?
IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN, J.---Through this appeal with the leave of the Court, the appellants have called in question the judgment dated 28.04.2008 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter to be referred as "the Tribunal"), in Appeal No,1194/2005, whereby the said appeal filed by respondent No, 1 has been accepted with a direction to consider him for antedated promotion of Naib Tehsildar w,e,f.
03.05.2005 i,e., with effect from the date when the vacancy of Naib Tehsildar had been reserved for respondent No, 2 (Muhammad Sarwar, Kanungo).
2. The concise facts of the instant appeal are that respondent No,1 was serving as Kanungo and on 03.02.2005 the Departmental Promotion Committee recommended names of his colleagues for promotion as Naib Tehsildar, but his name was not considered for promotion. Being aggrieved, he filed a- service appeal before the Tribunal, which was accepted vide impugned judgment in the terms mentioned above. Thereafter, the appellants approached this Court by filing Civil Petition No,917-L/2005, wherein leave was granted by this Court vide order 25.05.2009.
3. The only argument put forth by the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants was that respondent No, 1 was junior as such he could not be considered for antedate promotion with effect from 03.05.2005. He further argued that no one can claim promotion from .a specific date as the employees are always promoted on seniority-cum-fitness basis, as such the impugned judgment of the Tribunal may be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for .respondent No,1 fully supported the impugned judgment of the Tribunal.
4. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No, 1 and have also gone through the impugned judgment as well as material available on the record.
5. It is apparent that there were five available posts of Naib Tehsildar in the district of Bahawalnagar, which had fallen vacant. We have noticed that a seat of Naib Tehsildar had been illegally reserved by the Departmental Promotion Committee for respondent No,2, which clearly shows mala fide on the part of the appellant by favouring him. The learned Tribunal has duly considered this aspect of the matter and has observed as under:- "10. The only reason for which the appellant could not be considered for promotion on 3.2.2005 was that one of the five available posts of Naib Tehsildar had been reserved for his senior i,e, respondent No,5 who was senior to him. Admittedly respondent No,5 was not recommended for promotion in the meeting held on 3.2.2005 on account of pendency of an inquiry against him and so it was the appellant who could have been considered for promotion being the next in seniority.
But as it was not done, this amounted to illegality, rather injustice."
6. Moreover, it had also been admitted that respondent No,2 was working against an ex-cadre post out of district Bahawalnagar, as such was not working in his parent department, therefore, he being posted out of the district was ineligible for promotion.
7. In the above perspective, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is based upon proper appreciation of facts and law. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, therefore, in the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in the same. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed being bereft of any merits.