Pakistan Case Law
2001 SCMR 1282

MUHAMMAD MOHSIN RAZA Versus RIFAT SHEIKH

โญ Prefer in Google
Citation2001 SCMR 1282
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No.220โ€‘K of 1999
Date2000-12-06
Judge(s)Rashid Aziz Khan, Hamid Ali Mirza and Abdul Hameed Dogar
Authored byRashid Aziz Khan
ResultLeave granted

RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J .โ€‘โ€‘โ€‘Facts leading to the filing of this petition are that petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge on regular basis through Public Service Commission on 18โ€‘12โ€‘1985. Petitioner earned adverse remarks in his A.C.R. for the period 2โ€‘6โ€‘1988 to 10โ€‘9โ€‘1988. He filed a departmental representation whereupon adverse remarks were directed to be treated as "piece of advice", however, in the A.C.R. adverse remarks "below average" and "not yet fit for, promotion" were left to remain. In 1992, petitioner, alongwith his batch mates, was considered for promotion but his name was withdrawn with remarks that on account of patchy record he was not promoted vide notification 21โ€‘6โ€‘1992. Subsequently, by means of another notification dated 26โ€‘10โ€‘1992, petitioner was promoted as Senior Civil Judge. In the meanwhile, seniority list was published on 19โ€‘11โ€‘1992, wherein, petitioner was shown junior to respondents Nos.1 to 8. He filed departmental representation which failed on 2โ€‘5โ€‘1993. Thereafter, he filed an appeal before Service Tribunal which was dismissed on 1โ€‘2โ€‘1999, therefore, the present petition.

2. We have heard the learned counsel at length and perused the file. Adverse remarks, in the pen picture, were treated to be advisory in nature yet in the other columns of A.C.R., wherein it was recorded "not yet fit for promotion" were not scored off. We repeatedly asked the learned Law Officer, appearing for the respondent to show any material on the basis of which adverse remarks in para.6 of A.C.R. were recorded. No material was available on the file of the petitioner. Another striking feature is that petitioner was ignored for promotion on account of patchy record on 18โ€‘4โ€‘1992 and, thereafter, within four months, on the same record, he was promoted. We feel, there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of any material available on the record to any shape, adverse remarks in the A.C.R. could not be taken into consideration.

We accordingly grant leave to appeal to consider the above point.

Q.M.H./M.A.K./Mโ€‘235/S Leave granted.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.