ABDUL JABBAR KHAN vs The DIRECTOR, P.C.S.I.R. LABORATORIES, PESHAWAR
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition seeking parity in promotion with respondents Nos. 4 to 12. The petitioner and the said respondents, employees of P.C.S.I.R. Laboratories, Peshawar, were promoted to Grade 17, but the respondents received additional benefits based on a policy decision granting Class I status and advance increments to officers holding a second-division M.Sc. degree. The petitioner, who possessed a third-division M.Sc. degree, was promoted separately as a special case based on experience and publications, and subsequently claimed discrimination. The core legal questions concerned whether the petitioner had a vested right to promotion and whether a case of discrimination was established. The Supreme Court held that promotion is a matter within the exclusive discretion of the competent authority without any vested right, and that the petitioner, having different qualifications and being promoted on a separate basis, failed to establish any discrimination. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Does a government employee have a vested right to promotion?
- Whether promotion falls within the exclusive discretion and judgment of the competent authority?
- Does differential treatment based on qualification policy constitute unlawful discrimination?
ORDER
' ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.-Petitioner Abdul Jabbar Khan and respondents No, 4 to 12, who are all employees working in the P. C. S. I. R. Laboratories at Peshawar were promoted to Grade 17 on 14-6- 1976. The promotion given to the said respondents was ordered to take effect from the date of their passing the M. Sc. Examination with a benefit of five advance increments with effect from 1-7-1975.
As similar privilege was not extended to the petitioner and his representation in this behalf was dismissed, he instituted a Constitutional Petition in the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, seeking a direction that he be treated on par with the said respondents. The learned Judges of the High Court found that the promotion of the respondents was based on the policy decision of the competent authority as contained in the letter No, 512/914/73, dated 16th July, 1973 which stipulated for the grant of Class I status to all Research Chemists and equivalent officers working in the Council but this benefit was expressly restricted to such officers who had passed the M. Sc. Examination in 2nd division. As the petitioner had admittedly passed his M. Sc. Examination in the 3rd division, he was not extended the benefit of the policy decision referred to above. He was, however, promoted on his representation by a decision of the Selection Board dated 2-6-1976 as a special case, on the basis of his experience and work consisting of publications to his credit. The High Court, therefore, reached the conclusion that respondents Nos. 4 to 12 had been promoted on the basis of merit, being holders of 2nd division M. Sc. Degrees whereas the petitioner was promoted on an altogether different basis as stated above and, therefore, no case of discrimination was found established from the facts. On this conclusion the High Court dismissed the Constitutional Petition of the petitioner by judgment dated 19-1-1983.
2. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court the petitioner has brought this petition for special leave to appeal. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the policy letter referred to by the learned High Court was not binding on the Selection Board who were required to oust the respective qualifications of the officers concerned and in that context the petitioner was better qualified for promotion vis-a-vis respondents Nos. 4 to 12. In the submission of the learned counsel the basic qualification provided for appointment to the higher posts was only M. Sc. Which the petitioner possessed. We find no substance in the contention advanced by the learned counsel. In the first place the general rule is that the promotion is a matter lying within the exclusive discretion and judgment of the competent authority and no office has a vested right therein. Secondly the vires of the policy letter in question was not challenged by the petitioner before the High Court and, therefore, we are not inclined to examine this aspect of the case at this stage. We generally agree with the view taken by the learned Judges or the High Court on uncontroverted facts established on record which indicate no case of discrimination against the petitioner.
3. In view of the aforesaid there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.