SAJJADAHMEDJAVEDBHATTI Versus SECRETARY,ESTABLISHMENTDIVISION,ISLAMABAD
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal in limine. The petitioner, a civil servant, sought to challenge his previous supersession for promotion to Grade-19, arguing that the Central Selection Board had made a mistake in 1983 and subsequently recognized it. Having failed in previous litigation before the Tribunal and the Supreme Court regarding his seniority and promotion, the petitioner attempted to reopen the matter by invoking Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, alleging fraud. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could initiate fresh proceedings to review final judgments based on claims of fraud regarding a past administrative decision. The Supreme Court held that the previous judgments were based on the valid record of the Central Selection Board at the time and contained no error justifying a review under Section 12(2). The Court affirmed the Tribunal's dismissal, establishing that final judicial orders cannot be reopened through such proceedings absent genuine grounds of fraud, though the dismissal does not preclude departmental remedies if otherwise available under the law.
- Can a final judgment of a court be reopened under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the basis of an alleged administrative mistake in a promotion board's decision?
- Does the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal preclude a civil servant from seeking relief at the departmental level if otherwise entitled under the law?
- Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
1. SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J .‑‑‑The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of , Federal Service Tribunal dated 8‑11‑1995 whereby his Service Appeal No. 411 (R) of 1995 was dismissed in limine.
2. The petitioner after qualifying C.S.S. Examination in 1969 was posted in the Police Department in 1970. While serving in the Police Department he was suspended in 1982 but subsequently he was re‑instated in service with full back benefits vide Notification dated 2‑11‑1983. During the period, the petitioner was under suspension, some of his juniors were promoted to Grade‑19. The Selection Committee considered the case of petitioner for promotion to Grade‑19 on I1‑12‑1983, but did not clear him. The Selection Committee again took up the case of petitioner for consideration on 2‑1‑1985 but it was deferred. However, on 10‑9‑1985, the Selection ~ Committee recommended the case of petitioner for promotion and he was accordingly, promoted to Grade‑19 on 11‑11‑1985. The petitioner represented to Government for grant of seniority in Grade‑19 over those officers who were junior to him in service but were cleared for promotion in Grade‑19 earlier to him. The Government rejected the representation of petitioner whereupon he moved the Federal Service Tribunal but without any success. The petitioner then approached this Court but his appeal was rejected on 1‑12‑1992. A review petition before this Court by the petitioner also failed.
3. Not contended with the result of previous proceedings, the petitioner once again approached the Federal Service Tribunal, this time seeking review of the earlier judgment of Tribunal in Appeal No. 132(L) of 1986 on the ground of fraud under section 12(2), C.P.C. The learned Tribunal found the appeal of petitioner misconceived and consequently dismissed the same summarily by the impugned judgment.
4. The petitioner who is appearing in person contended that the supersession of petitioner in the meeting of Central Selection Board held on 11‑12‑1983 was the result of some misunderstanding on the part of members of Selection Committee and therefore, on realisation of their mistake, they have recommended the case of petitioner for reconsideration to the competent Authority. The petitioner accordingly, contended that since the orders passed by the Federal Service Tribunal and this Court rejecting the appeal of petitioner are likely to come in his way, in the interest of justice the order of this Court may be reviewed suitably. The decision of the Federal Service Tribunal and of this Court passed in the earlier proceedings proceeded on the basis of the order of Central Selection Board dated 11‑12‑1983 refusing to clear the petitioner for promotion in Grade‑19. Therefore, there was no error either in the order of Tribunal or of this Court justifying initiation of subsequent proceedings by the petitioner seeking review of the earlier orders of Tribunal, under section 12(2), C.P.C. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the impugned order passed by the Service Tribunal.
5. In so far the contention of petitioner that the Central Selection Board has released its earlier mistake and want to rectify the same, we may clarify that dismissal of this present petition will not come in the way of petitioner, if he is otherwise entitled to any relief at the departmental level under the law. The petition is dismissed with these observations.
6. A.A./S‑1030/S Petition dismissed
Cited by 4 cases
- TAHIRA QURESHI vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR through Chief Secretary and 8 others 2010 PLC (C.S.) 209
- NISAR AHMAD KAYANI vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 4 others 1999 PLC (C.S.) 1002
- ABDUL QADIR vs ABDUL KARIM through Chief Secretary and 4 others 1999 PLC (C.S.) 947
- TAHIRA QURESHI vs AZAD GOVT. OF THE STATE OF AJ&K through its Chief 2010 PLJ AJ&K 118