FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER vs RAMZAN MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 11-5-1983 of the Central Service Tribunal, which had allowed the respondent's service appeal concerning promotion. The core legal question involves the competency of the Service Tribunal to interfere with promotion orders passed by the concerned authority. The Supreme Court held that while questions of eligibility and consideration for promotion are distinguishable from prospects of promotion, no substantial question of law of public importance is involved warranting interference, as the legal position on this matter has already been settled by the Court. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the Service Tribunal cannot interfere with promotion orders where no appeal is competent regarding promotion prospects, and matters settled by prior jurisprudence do not merit further leave under the constitutional jurisdiction.
- Whether the Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to interfere with orders of promotion passed by the concerned authority?
- Are questions of eligibility and consideration for promotion distinguishable from those concerning prospects of promotion?
- Article 212, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 11-5-1983 of the Central Service Tribunal; whereby the respondent's service appeal was allowed.
2. ' Learned Deputy Attorney-General has, relying on Dr. Ehsan-ul-Haq v. The Province of Punjab and others (1), contended that the Tribunal could not interfere with the orders of promotion passed by the concerned authority, as no appeal in this behalf was competent.
3. It is not denied that questions of eligibility and consideration for promotion are distinguishable from those of prospects of promotion. As contended by the learned Deputy Attorney-General the law in this behalf has already been declared by this Court that being so no question or any other question of law of public importance is involved in this case. It I thus not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal under Article 212 of the Constitution. {{FOOT NOTE}} (1)1980 SCM R 972 {{FOOT NOTE}}