M/o House Building Finance Corporation Ltd. And another vs Muhammad
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which allowed a writ petition and directed the petitioners to issue a promotion order for the respondent as Chief Manager from the date his junior was promoted. The core legal question was whether the High Court could substitute its own view for that of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and directly order promotion instead of remanding the matter for reconsideration. The Supreme Court held that the High Court could not substitute its own view for that of the DPC; if the High Court found flaws in the consideration process, the appropriate course was to remand the case back to the departmental authority for a fresh decision. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and directed the departmental authority to reconsider the respondent afresh within one month. The key principle laid down is that constitutional courts cannot usurp departmental functions by substituting their own views for administrative bodies like the DPC regarding promotions.
- Can a High Court substitute its own view for that of the Departmental Promotion Committee in matters of employee promotion?
- What is the appropriate course of action for a High Court when it finds that relevant rules or data were not considered in their correct perspective by a departmental authority?
- Whether a court can directly order the promotion of an employee instead of remanding the case for reconsideration?
ORDER
' EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J. --- This petition for leave to appeal has arisen out of the judgment dated 09.09.2015 of the Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court whereby it allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent by holding as under:--- "6.Since respondent No. 3 is not before us, therefore, instead of setting aside his promotion order, we directed the respondents No. 1 and 2 to issue promotion order of petitioner as well, as Chief Manager, w,e,f, when junior to the petitioner i.e. respondent No. 3 was promoted, within one month from the date of receipt of this judgment. Writ petition is allowed in above terms."
2. Learned ASC appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that if in any case the High Court after considering the facts and circumstances on the record came to the conclusion that the respondent was not promoted on account of a reason not expressed in the minutes of meeting, it could have directed the departmental authority to reconsider the respondent for promotion to the next higher scale from the date his other colleagues were promoted, but it under no canons of law, could substitute its own view for that of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).
3. The respondent appearing in person contended that he was denied promotion without any rhyme and reason; that an inquiry was pending against him but pendency of an inquiry could not be a ground for withholding promotion and that the decision of the DPC being against the relevant rules then in force cannot be maintained.
4. We have gone through the record carefully and have considered the submissions of the learned ASC for the petitioners and respondent in person.
5. What prevailed with the DPC while dropping the respondent cannot be commented on at this stage, lest the case of either of the parties is prejudiced. In case, the High Court was of the view that the entire data having bearing on promotion of the respondent or the relevant rules were not considered in their correct perspective, it could have sent the case back to the departmental authority for reconsideration or decision afresh. But it, under no canons of law, could substitute its own view for that of the DPC. The impugned judgment thus cannot be maintained.
6. For the reasons discussed above, we convert this petition into appeal, allow it, and set aside the impugned judgment with the direction to the departmental authority to consider the respondent afresh by taking stock of all the data relevant in this behalf. As this case has been lingering on since 2005, it be decided within a period of one month.