MUHAMMAD ASLAM GILL vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, COMMUNICATIONS & WORKS Departments
The petitioner, a civil servant, sought leave to appeal against a Punjab Service Tribunal judgment dismissing his challenge to the promotion of colleagues and the maintenance of seniority lists. The petitioner raised three grievances: improper promotion practices in 1973, errors in a 1974 seniority list, and the failure to prepare or maintain a seniority list since 1976. The Supreme Court held that the first two grievances could not be adjudicated because the petitioner failed to implead the specific individuals whose promotions or seniority positions were being challenged, rendering any decision on eligibility or legality impossible in their absence. Regarding the third grievance, the Court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust the necessary administrative remedies—specifically, calling upon the responsible officer to prepare the list and representing the matter to higher authorities before approaching the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the Court found no question of law or public importance warranting interference and refused leave to appeal, emphasizing the necessity of impleading affected parties and exhausting departmental remedies.
- Can a court adjudicate a challenge to promotions or seniority lists without impleading the individuals whose positions are being challenged?
- Is it necessary for a civil servant to exhaust departmental remedies before approaching the Service Tribunal regarding the non-preparation of a seniority list?
- Does the failure to implead necessary parties preclude judicial determination of the legality of promotion actions?
- Section 7, Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974
ORDER
1. SHAFI-UR-REHMAN, J.-The petitioner a civil servant, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal whereby his appeal against the promotion of certain persons belonging to his cadre was dis--missed.
2. It appears from what the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner bad three grievances which be wanted to get redressed. Firstly, his grievance was that certain promotions had been made in the year 1973 which had not been made in accordance with the seniority list as it should have been prepared. The other grievance of the petitioner is that the seniority list which was prepared in 1974 and held the field till 1976 when it was withdrawn, was not correctly prepared and certain persons junior to the petitioner were shown as senior. Thirdly, it is contended that after the with--drawal of the seniority list in 1976 no other seniority list has been prepared, circulated or is being maintained as required by section 7 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act.
3. So far as the first two objections of the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned it appears that they could not be dealt with either by the Services Tribunal or by this Court because he has not impleaded any of the persons who according to him have susperseded him either in the matter of promotion or in the seniority list as such. In the absence of these, persons any adjudication on the entitlement eligibility or legality or legality of the action cannot be undertaken and concluded. As regards the third grievance the non-preparation of the seniority list, the petitioner should have called upon the officer charged with the responsibility of preparing the seniority list and on his failure to do so he should have represented to the higher authority and then brought his grievance before the Service Tribunal directly with' regard to the non-preparation of the seniority list. He ha, not done so. The) petition does not raise any question of law and of public importance which may justify consideration by this Court. Leave to appeal is refused.