BAHAWAL SHAH MAZARI vs KHAWAND BAKHSH KHAN MAZARI
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by Bahawal Shah Mazari against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had set aside an impugned order and directed the relevant authority to refer the matter of promotion to the post of Deffadar to a Promotion/Selection Committee for a fresh decision in accordance with the applicable rules. The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's decision, primarily contending that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal. The Supreme Court observed that this specific plea regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction had not been raised before the Tribunal itself. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner could not be permitted to raise such a plea for the first time at the appellate stage, particularly given that the matter had already been remanded for consideration by the appropriate Promotion/Selection Committee. Finding no merit in the petition, the Supreme Court dismissed it, thereby upholding the Tribunal's directive for a fresh decision by the competent authority.
- Can a party raise a plea regarding the jurisdiction of a tribunal for the first time during an appeal before the Supreme Court?
- Is a service tribunal's order directing a fresh decision by a promotion committee subject to interference when the petitioner failed to challenge the tribunal's jurisdiction initially?
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.-Bahawal Shah Mazari, Lance Deffadar, B.M.P. Post Bara, District Rajanpur seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 8-3-84.
2. ' The Punjab Service Tribunal by judgment dated 8-3-84 accepted the appeal filed by the petitioner observing thereby:- "I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order in the field is liable to be set aside, which I set it aside accordingly, with the direction that respondent No, 3 will now refer the matter to the Promotion /Selection Committee, for promotion to the Post of Deffadar, constituted under the rules so mentioned above in the earlier part of my judgment and after receiving the recommendations of the Committee he will make a fresh decision guided by the Rules and criteria for the said post."
3. ' The petitioner was not satisfied with the order of the Tribunal. He, therefore, filed this petition for leave to appeal.
4. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the appeal. But this I position was never taken up before the Tribunal and we don't think the petitioner can avail of this plea at this stage especially when the matter has been referred to the Promotion/Selection Committee.
5. ' There is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.